Zh e  UlntvcrsitB  of  Cbicago 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER:  THE 
BEGINNING  OF  CHRISTIAN 
APOLOGETIC 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY 
OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND  LITERATURE 
IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 
DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT  OF  HEW  TESTAMENT  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE 
IN  THE  GRADUATE  DIVINITY  SCHOOL 


JOSEPH  NICHOLAS  REAGAN 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

BS29faO 

.PGRS 

coph2 


TEbe  raniversttp  ot  Chicago 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER:  THE 
BEGINNING  OF  CHRISTIAN 
APOLOGETIC 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY 
OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND  LITERATURE 
IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 
DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE 
IN  THE  GRADUATE  DIVINITY  SCHOOL 


BY 


/ 

N/ 


JOSEPH  NICHOLAS  REAGAN 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


Copyright  1923  By 
The  University  of  Chicago 


All  Rights  Reserved 


Published  June  1923 


Composed  and  Printed  By 
The  University  of  Chicago  Press 
Chicago,  Illinois,  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 


The  present  study  was  suggested  to  the  writer  by  a  remark  of 
Professor  Edgar  Johnson  Goodspeed  during  a  course  of  lectures  at  the 
University  of  Chicago  last  summer.  Professor  Goodspeed  said  that 
were  he  to  edit  again  “The  Oldest  Christian  Apologists,”  he  would 
give  the  first  place  to  “The  Preaching  of  Peter.” 

Much  had  been  written  on  the  subject,  but,  as  the  study  progressed, 
the  problem  seemed  still  unsolved:  Was  the  Preaching  older  than  some 
other  known  apologies  ?  Was  it  really  more  of  an  apology  than  some  of 
the  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament  ?  Indeed,  Professor  Good- 
speed  himself,  in  his  Story  of  the  New  Testament  (p.  57),  had  called 
Matthew’s  Gospel  “  the  first  historic  apology  for  universal  Christianity,  ” 
and  E.  F.  Scott  had  written  a  book  on  The  Apologetic  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  (1907).  This  involved  the  present  writer  in  the  difficulty  of 
determining  precisely  the  nature  of  apologetic  in  early  Christianity  and 
of  investigating  its  beginnings. 

The  investigation  was  fascinating,  especially  in  the  somewhat 
untouched  questions  of  the  relation  of  Christian  Apologetic  to  Jewish 
and  heathen.  To  determine  what  “The  Preaching  of  Peter”  really 
was;  its  relation  to  other  writings  of  “Peter”;  its  date  and  place  of 
origin;  the  sources  of  its  material;  the  reason  for  such  selection;  and 
to  see  what  advantage  the  light  thus  shed  might  afford  in  the  study  of 
Christian  origins — all  this  seemed  a  task  worth  while.  But  the  material 
to  be  handled  was  enormous,  and  keenly  felt  was  the  desideratum  long 
before  recognized  by  Paul  Wendland:  “Es  waere  sehr  wuenschenswert, 
dass  die  apologetischen  und  polemischen  Gedanken  der  juedisch- 
hellenistichen  Litteratur  einmal  gesammelt  wuerden,  damit  wir  deren 
Einfluss  auf  die  altchristliche  Apologetik  ermessen  Koennten.”1  How¬ 
ever,  as  an  important  part  of  the  study  was  to  determine  to  what  class 
of  literature  the  Preaching  belonged,  as  well  as  the  time  and  place  of  its 
provenance,  it  seemed  at  all  events  advisable  to  go  through  the  literature 
of  several  centuries  preceding  the  appearance  of  the  Preaching  in  Clement 
of  Alexandria’s  Stromateis ,  that  is  from  about  200  b.c.  to  200  a.d.,  and 
note  what  in  any  way  resembled  the  known  fragments  in  thought  or 

1  Paul  Wendland,  “Die  Therapeuten, ”  Jahrbuechcr  fuer  classische  Theologie, 
XXII,  Suppl.  (Leipzig,  1896),  p.  708. 


VI 


PREFACE 


language.  The  question  of  chronology  of  such  significant  sources  as, 
for  instance,  the  Hermetic  Literature,  however  important  in  itself,  has 
not  been  discussed  here,  when  it  could  be  reasonably  concluded  from  the 
investigation  of  scholars  that  the  source  in  question  was  at  least  prior 
to  the  year  100  a.d.  Of  later  literature,  the  Clementine  and  the  Barlaam 
and  Joasaph  romance,  the  Sacra  Parallela  and  the  Pseudo-Cyprian 
treatises,  as  well  as  Eusebius  and  the  apologists,  have  contributed  much 
material  of  value,  but  whether  the  use  made  of  the  Preaching  by 
these  was  at  first  or  second  hand  could  not  always  be  determined. 

While  none  of  the  fragments  which  it  has  been  thought  might 
belong  to  the  Preaching  could  well  be  ignored,  and  while  much  has 
necessarily  been  said  about  the  beginnings  of  Christian  apologetic,  the 
one  purpose  of  the  present  study  was  to  determine  the  Preaching’s 
place  in  literature,  and  the  writer  has  tried  to  present  the  work  which 
convinced  him  that  the  Preaching  of  Peter  is  the  oldest  known  Christian 
apology. 

He  acknowledges  his  great  indebtedness  to  the  scholars  whose 
previous  work  upon  the  Preaching  he  has  so  freely  used,  especially 
Hilgenfeld,  J.  A.  Robinson,  E.  von  Dobschuetz,  and  J.  Geffcken. 

It  was  particularly  to  the  living  problems  with  which  the  early 
Christian  apologists  had  to  deal,  that  the  writer  has  given  his  attention; 
and  it  is  here  especially,  in  getting  a  view  of  those  problems  in  the  light 
of  their  own  day,  that  he  acknowledges  with  pleasure  and  gratitude 
his  indebtedness  to  Professor  Shirley  Jackson  Case,  without  whose 
kind  encouragement  and  valuable  suggestions  the  work  could  scarce 
have  been  completed. 

Finally,  the  writer  wishes  to  express  his  grateful  appreciation  of 
the  many  valuable  suggestions  and  kind  criticisms  and  indispensable 
assistance  received  from  Professor  Ernest  De  Witt  Burton  and  Professor 
Edgar  Johnson  Goodspeedy  with  whom  it  has  been  the  writer’s  good 
fortune  and  pleasure  to  be  able  frequently  to  confer  in  the  writing  of 
this  dissertation. 

The  readers  into  whose  hands  this  dissertation  may  fall,  while  criticiz¬ 
ing  it  as  the  interests  of  thorough  scholarship  and  justice  may  demand, 
will,  it  is  hoped,  be  mindful  of  the  difficulties  under  which  work  of  this 
kind  during  war  times  is  laboring. 

Joseph  Nicholas  Reagan 

University  of  Chicago 
May  i,  1921 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Abbreviations  ..........  ix 

I.  Introduction:  Previous  Study  of  the  Preaching  i 

II.  The  Preaching’s  Place  in  Literature  .....  8 

III.  The  Beginnings  of  Christian  Apologetic  ....  47 

IV.  Commentary  on  the  Fragments  ......  60 

The  Name.  Relation  of  the  Preaching  to  Other  Petrine  Writ¬ 
ings.  Other  Possible  Fragments.  Date.  Place  of  Writing. 

Index . 83 


vii 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/preachingofpeterOOreag 


ABBREVIATIONS  FREQUENTLY  USED 

A. A. — Die  aeltesten  Apologeten,  E.  J.  Goodspeed,  Goettingen,  1914;  the  text 
of  Aristides,  Justin,  Tatian,  Melito,  and  Athenagoras,  unless  other¬ 
wise  indicated. 

Apoc. — Apocalypse  of  John,  or  Revelation. 

Apol. — Apology. 

Amim — Joannes  Amim,  Stoicorum  Veterum  Fragmenta ,  I  (05),  II  (03),  III  (03). 

Bousset — W.  Bousset,  Juedisch-Christlischer  Schultrieb  in  Alexandria  und  Rom, 

1915- 

Charles — R.  H.  Charles,  The  Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  I— II,  1913. 

Clem.  Strom,  or  Eel.  Proph. — Clement  of  Alexandria’s  Stromateis  or  Eclogae 
Prophetarum,  ed.  Staehlin,  I  (05),  II  (06),  III  (09). 

Clem.  H.R. — The  Clementine  Homilies  and  Recognitions. 

Dial. — Justin’s  Dialogue  with  the  Jew  Trypho,  Goodspeed,  Die  aelt.  Apol. 

Dob. — Ernst  von  Dobschuetz,  “Das  Kerygma  Petri  kritisch  untersucht,” 
in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  zur  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Liter atur, 
herausgegeben  von  Hamack  und  Gebhardt,  Leipzig,  XI,  1  (1894), 
pp.  1-162. 

Euseb.  H.E. — Hieronymi  Eusebii  Historia  Ecclesiastica. 

G.A.L. — Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur,  of  Bardenhewer,  Hamack,  etc. 

Her.  Cor. — Hermetic  Literature  Corpus  (Parthy,  Hermetis  Trism.  Poem.,  1854). 

Jo. — John,  the  Fourth  Gospel;  I  Jo.  II  Jo.  Ill  Jo. — The  Epistles  of  John. 

J. C.P. — Jahrbiicher  fiir  classische  Philologie. 

K. P. — Kerygma  Petrou — The  Preaching  of  Peter. 

L.  — Luke,  the  Third  Gospel. 

Mk. — Mark,  the  Second  Gospel. 

Mt. — Matthew,  the  First  Gospel. 

P.G.,  P.L. — Migne,  Patrologia  Graeca,  Patrologia  Latina. 

N. T. — New  Testament. 

O. T. — Old  Testament. 

T.L.Z. — Theologische  Literatur  Zeitung. 

T.U. — Texte  und  Untersuchungen  zur  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur, 
Gebhardt-Harnack,  Schmidt-Harnack,  Leipzig. 


IX 


X 


ABBREVIATIONS  FREQUENTLY  USED 


T.S. — Texts  and  Studies,  J.  A.  Robinson,  Cambridge. 

Zahn  For. — Theodor  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  Ntl.  Kanons  und 
der  altkirchlichen  Literatur,  Leipzig. 

G.N.T.K. — Theodor  Zahn,  Geschichte  des  neutestamentlichen  Kanons :  I. 
Das  Neue  Testament  vor  Origines,  Leipzig,  1887-1889.  II.  Urkunden 
und  Beilage  zum  ersten  und  dritten  Band,  Leipzig,  1890-1892. 

Z.W.T. — Zeitschrijt  fuer  wissenschaftliche  Theologie,  Leipzig. 


I 

INTRODUCTION:  PREVIOUS  STUDY  OF  THE  PREACHING 


The  Preaching  of  Peter  is  quoted,  evidently  with  belief  that  it  is 
genuine  Scripture,  by  Clement  of  Alexandria1  in  his  Stromateis,  or 
Miscellanies ,  that  veritable  mine  of  traditional  Christian  teaching  of 
the  Alexandrine  School,  gathered  and  put  to  writing  about  the  year 

200  A.D. 

I.  In  the  Preaching  of  Peter  you  may  find  the  Lord  called  “Law  and 
Logos”  [Strom,  i.  29.  182].  Peter  (in  the  Preaching)  calls  the  Lord  “Logos 
and  Law”  [ibid.  ii.  15.  68].  “Law  and  Logos”  the  Savior  himself  is  called,  as 
Peter  (in  the  Preaching)  says  [Eel.  Proph.  58]. 

II.  Peter  says  in  the  Preaching:  “Know  therefore  that  there  is  one  God, 
who  made  the  Beginning  (arche)  of  all  things  and  has  control  over  their  destiny. 
.  .  .  .  He  is  unseen,  Who  sees  all  things;  immovable,  Who  moves  all  things; 
He  needs  nothing,  Whom  all  things  need  and  by  Whom  they  exist;  He  is 
unchangeable,  eternal,  immortal;  uncreated,  Who  created  all  things  by  the 
Word  (Logos)  of  His  Power  (Dynamis),  that  is,  according  to  Gnostic  Writings, 
the  Son”  [Strom,  vi.  5.  39]. 

III.  Then  he  adds:  “Worship  (this)  God,  not  as  the  Greeks  ....  for 
they,  led  astray  by  ignorance,  not  knowing  God  as  we  do,  according  to  perfect 
knowledge,  making  images  of  those  things,  the  dominion  of  which  He  gave 
them  for  their  use — wood  and  stone,  copper  and  iron,  gold  and  silver — changing 
them  from  their  (material)  nature  and  use  as  things  for  service,  they  set  them 
up  and  worship  them;  and  those  things  which  God  gave  them  for  food — the 
fowls  of  the  air  and  swimming  things  of  the  sea  and  creeping  things  of  the 
earth  and  wild  beasts  and  fourfooted  cattle  of  the  field,  weasels  also  and 
mice,  cats  also  and  dogs  and  apes,  even  to  these,  their  eatables,  they  offer 
eatables  as  sacrifices,  setting  dead  things  before  the  dead  as  gods;  they  are 
ungrateful  to  God,  denying  by  these  actions  that  He  exists”  [ibid.]. 

IV.  Again  he  will  continue  thus  to  show  how:  “Neither  shall  you  worship 
as  do  the  Jews,  for  they  too,  though  they  think  they  alone  know  God,  have 
not  experienced  Him,  but  worship  angels  and  archangels,  month  and  moon; 
and  unless  the  moon  appears  they  do  not  keep  the  Sabbath  which  is  called 
‘first,’  nor  keep  ‘new-moon,’  nor  ‘azymes,’  nor  ‘feast,’  nor  ‘great  day’” 
[ibid.  5.  41]. 

V.  Then  he  goes  on  to  say:  “As  you  have  learned  holily  and  justly,  what 
we  have  delivered  to  you,  keep.  Worship  God  in  a  new  way  through  Christ; 

1  Unless  otherwise  indicated,  the  edition  used  in  this  dissertation  is  Otto  Stahlin, 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Leipzig,  1905-9. 

1 


2 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


for  we  have  found  in  the  Scriptures  how  the  Lord  says:  ‘Behold  I  make  with 
you  a  New  Covenant,  not  such  as  I  made  with  your  fathers  on  Mount  Horeb, 
a  New  Covenant  I  make  with  you:  for  those  of  the  (Heathen)  Greeks  and 
Jews  are  grown  old  (palaia);  but  we,  after  a  new  manner,  as  a  third  race, 
worship  God  as  Christians’”  [ibid.]. 

VI.  Wherefore  Peter  says  the  Lord  said  to  the  Apostles:  “If  therefore  any 
one  of  Israel  will,  having  repented,  believe  in  God  through  my  name,  his  sins 
shall  be  forgiven  him.  But  after  twelve  years  go  out  into  the  world,  lest  any 
one  say,  ‘we  did  not  hear’  .  .  .  [ibid.  5.  43]. 

VII.  In  the  Preaching  of  Peter,  the  Lord  says  to  his  disciples  after  the 
Resurrection:  “I  chose  you  twelve  disciples,  judging  you  to  be  worthy  of  me, 
(you)  whom  the  Lord  desired ;  having  deemed  you  faithful  Apostles,  sending 
you  into  the  world  to  evangelize  men  throughout  the  universe,  to  know  that 
there  is  one  God  through  the  faith  of  the  Christ,  (which  is)  mine,  making  plain 
what  is  to  come  to  pass,  so  that  those  who  hear  and  believe  may  be  saved; 
but  those  who  having  heard  do  not  believe,  may  bear  witness  that  they  have 
no  excuse  to  say:  ‘we  did  not  hear’”  [ibid.  6.  48]. 

VIII.  Again  he  says  to  all  rational  souls:  “Whatsoever  any  one  of  you  did 
in  ignorance,  not  knowing  God  aright,  if  he,  having  learned  to  know,  repent, 
all  his  sins  will  be  forgiven  him”  [ibid.]. 

IX.  Wherefore  Peter  also  in  the  Preaching,  speaking  of  the  Apostles,  says: 
“We  indeed  opening  the  books  we  have  of  the  Prophets  have  found  those 
things  which  (are  said)  in  parables,  and  those  in  enigmas,  and  those  openly 
and  explicitly  calling  Jesus  the  Christ;  we  find  also  his  manifestation  (parousia) 
and  death,  and  his  cross,  and  all  the  other  sufferings  which  the  Jews  inflicted 
on  him,  and  the  Resurrection  (egersis)  and  Assumption  (analepsis)  into  heaven, 
to  have  been  done  before  Jerusalem,  as  it  had  been  written  it  was  fitting  that 
he  should  suffer,  and  what  should  come  to  pass  after  him.  Therefore,  having 
learned  these  things  we  believed  God  on  account  of  what  had  been  written 
of  him”  [ibid.  15.  148]. 

X.  And  after  a  few  words  he  goes  on  again  showing  that  the  prophecies 
came  to  pass  according  to  divine  Providence  thus:  “For  we  knew  that  God 
truly  ordained  these  things,  and  we  say  nothing  without  Scripture  (proof)  ” 
[ibid.]. 

Origen,1  Clement’s  successor  at  the  Alexandrine  School,  refers  to 
the  Preaching  in  the  following  way: 

Now  the  words  of  Heracleon  are  often  repeated,  quoting  from  (the  work) 
entitled  the  Preaching  of  Peter,  and  it  is  proposed  to  make  a  careful  investiga¬ 
tion  also  concerning  that  little  book,  whether  it  be  genuine  or  spurious  or 
mixt;  therefore  we  rather  pass  it  by  (for  the  present)  with  this  one  remark 
that,  as  it  is  said,  Peter  taught,  “you  should  not  worship  God  as  do  the  Greeks, 

1  A.  E.  Brooke,  The  Commentary  of  Origen  on  S.  John's  Gospel ,  I  (Cambridge, 
1896),  264. 


INTRODUCTION 


3 


taking  material  things  and  adoring  wood  and  stone;  nor  worship  God  as  do 
the  Jews,  for  they  too  thinking  they  alone  know  God,  do  not  know  Him,  but 
adore  angels  and  month  and  moon”  [Com.  in  Jo.,  XIII,  17.  Cf.  Frag.  XI 

(P-  73,  n-  *)]• 

There  are  several  other  passages  which  have  been  thought  by  some 
to  belong  to  the  Preaching  of  Peter,  but  owing  to  confusion  of  titles, 
due  partly  to  translation,  there  is  considerable  discussion  concerning 
the  possible  identity  of  The  Preaching  of  Peter  with  The  Teaching  of 
Peter,  The  Sermons  of  Peter,  The  Preaching  of  Peter  and  Paul,  and  the 
like.  These  and  other  more  or  less  doubtful  fragments  will  be  considered 
in  chapter  iv. 

It  is  strange  that  a  work  of  such  value  in  remote  Christian  antiquity 
claiming  and  acknowledged  to  be  from  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  should 
have  been  allowed  to  perish.  Origen’s  disparaging  remark  may  suggest 
the  explanation.  Even  though  he  intended  but  to  check  up  Heracleon’s 
Scripture  authorities  and  refuse  to  acknowledge  the  Preaching  as  an 
authentic  work  of  Peter,  his  words  connote  more  than  this:  the  Preaching 
had  been  used  by  the  Valentinian  Gnostic  Heracleon,  and  may  on  this 
account  have  been  rejected  with  Gnostic  writings  in  globo.  Apparently 
it  was  also  in  favor  with  the  party  which  produced  the  Clementine 
literature,  and  its  remnants  are  unmistakably  discernable  in  the  Homilies 
and  Recognitions A  Eusebius2  followed  Origen,  of  course,  not  only  in 
rejecting  the  Preaching  but  incredibly  minimizing  the  value  and  popu¬ 
larity  of  all  the  writings  current  under  Peter’s  name,  except  the  first 
Epistle.  Jerome,3  or  whoever  wrote  De  viris  illustribus,  is  here  as  else¬ 
where  only  a  faulty  copyist  of  Eusebius. 

The  content  of  the  Preaching  was  absorbed  by  the  second-century 
apologists,  and  shared  the  fate  of  Quadratus  and  others  that  perished. 
With  the  Apology  of  Aristides,  it  seems,  it  crept  into  the  Barlaam  and 
Joasaph4  romance,  written  probably  in  the  seventh  century.  Be  this 

1  M.  H.  Waitz,  “Die  Pseudoclementinen  Homilien  und  Rekognitionen, ”  T.U., 
XXV  (Leipzig,  1904),  4. 

2  Euseb.  H.E.  iii.  3.  2. 

3Hieron.  De  Vir.  iii.  19;  Ep.  70,  Ad  Magnum  4. 

4  The  Barlaam  and  Joasaph  romance,  which  had  long  been  known  in  a  Latin 
version  of  the  works  of  S.  John  Damascene,  and  a  Greek  text,  had  been  edited  for  the 
first  time  in  Boissonade’s  Anecdota  Graeca,  IV  (Paris,  1832),  1-365,  and  reprinted 
in  Migne’s  P.G.,  IV,  No.  96  (Paris),  859-1240,  which  is  the  text  here  used,  when,  after 
the  recovery  of  the  Apology  of  Aristides  in  a  Syriac  translation  in  1889,  it  was  observed 
by  J.  A.  Robinson  to  contain  that  apology  in  Greek.  Geffcken,  Zwei  griech.  Apol., 
p.  316,  points  several  pages  which  may  be  taken  from  the  Preaching  of  Peter.  Bar- 
denhewer,  G.A.L.,  I,  172  £f.;  Krumbacher,  G.B.L.2,  pp.  886-91. 


4 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


as  it  may,  the  Preaching  was  all  but  forgotten  till  comparatively  recent 
times  when  scholars  recognized  its  superiority  over  the  literature  with 
which  it  had  been  classed  and  attempted  to  recover  the  fragments  of 
the  work  of  this  evidently  clear-minded,  sober  thinker  of  remote  Christian 
antiquity. 

Dodwell,1  in  his  1689  Oxford  dissertation  on  Irenaeus,  passingly 
alludes  to  Origen’s  mention  of  the  Preaching.  In  1700  Grabe2  gathered 
the  fragments  with  considerable  completeness  and  commented  on  them. 
While  not  believing  the  Preaching  a  work  of  Peter,  he  thought  it  written 
shortly  after  Peter’s  death.  Another  century,  however,  was  to  pass 
with  but  brief  mention  of  the  Preaching  by  writers  on  the  New  Testament 
canon,  till  Kleuker3  recognized  the  writer  as  a  Greek  Christian,  not  a 
Judaizer,  as  it  had  been  thought,  but  mistook  him  for  a  partisan  of  the 
opposite  extreme.  Study  of  the  Petrine4  and  Clementine  Literature 
drew  the  attention  of  scholars  to  the  Preaching,  but  they  saw  in  it  only 
another  instance  of  partisan  polemic.  Credner5  collected  the  texts  and 
discussion  of  them  up  to  1832.  Bleek6  anticipated  the  present  opinion 
when  he  characterized  the  “sog.  Predigt  des  Petrus”  as  “eine  apokry- 
phische  Schrift,  die  nach  den  erhaltenen  Fragmenten  einen  tiefdenkenden 
alexandrinischen  Heiden-christen  muss  zum  Verfasser  gehabt  haben 
und  deren  Verlust  gar  sehr  zu  bedauern  ist.” 

It  was  Hilgenfeld7  that  first  with  patient  labor  gathered  the  disiecta 
membra  of  the  Preaching  of  Peter,  judiciously  discriminating  between 
them  and  the  remains  of  other  apparently  partisan  polemic,  arranged 
them  in  plausible  order,  and  edited  them  with  scholarly  annotations 
in  his  Novum  Testamentum  extra  canonem  receptum ,  in  1866,  under  the 
title  of  “Praedicatio  Petri  (et  Pauli).”  Besides  the  fragments  from 
Clement  and  Origen,  given  above,  Hilgenfeld  included  passages  from 
St.  Gregory  Naz.  Orations ,  Oecumenius’  Commentary  on  James ,  Sacra 

1  Dodwell,  Dissertationes  in  Irenaeum,  VI  (Oxon.,  1689),  10-11. 

2  Grabe,  Spicilegium  patrum ,  I  (1700),  55  ff. 

3  Kleuker,  Apokryphen  des  Neuen  Testaments  (1798),  pp.  267  ff. 

4  E.  T.  Mayerhoff,  Historisch-critische  Einleitung  in  die  Petrinische  Schriften 
(1835),  pp.  304-18;  Schliemann,  Die  Clementinen  nebst  den  verwandten  Schriften  und 
der  Ebionitismus  der  ersten  J ahrhunderte  (Hamburg,  1844),  pp.  253-64. 

5  Credner,  Beitrdge  zur  Einleitung  in  die  biblischen  Schriften ,  I  (1832),  348  ff. 

6  Bleek,  “Ueber  die  Entstehung  und  Zusammensetzung  der  ....  Sibyllinischer 
Orakel,  ”  in  De  Welte  and  Lueckes  Theologische  Zeitschrift,  I  (1849),  I44- 

7  Hilgenfeld,  Novum  Testamentum  extra  canonem  receptum ,  fasc.  IV  (2d  ed., 
1884),  pp.  51-65. 


INTRODUCTION 


5 


Parallela,  Acta  Petri  et  Pauli ,  the  Pseudo-Cyprian  treatise  De  rebaptis - 
mate ,  and  Lactantius  /wsL  Jw.  (iv.  21),  which  will  be  discussed  below, 
chapter  iv.  He  thought  the  Preaching  of  Peter  had  been  added  to  the 
Lucan  Acts  of  the  Apostles  as  a  “Third  Treatise”  (cf.  Acts  in).1 
J.  A.  Robinson,2  in  an  appendix  to  J.  Rendel  Harris’  edition  of  the 
Apology  of  Aristides,  discussed  the  relation  of  the  Preaching  to  that 
apology,  but  with  too  great  eagerness  to  find  in  it  what  he  wished  to 
prove  apostolic.3  Theodor  Zahn,4  while  exhaustively  commenting  on 
the  canonicity  of  the  Preaching,  at  first  (in  1889)  admitted  and  then 
(in  1892)  rejected  Hilgenfeld’s  hypothesis  of  “The  Preaching  of  Peter 
(and  Paul).”  Zahn  derives  all  this  Pauline  material  from  the  Acts  of 
Paul.5  A.  Harnack,6  with  characteristic  acumen  and  brevity,  gives 
the  Preaching  fragments  nearly  as  Hilgenfeld  had  given  them,  though 
not  allowing  the  authenticity  of  all.  Harnack’s  remark7  that  the  five  old 
Petrine  writings  should  be  critically  studied  induced  E.  von  Dobschuetz8 
to  make  a  thorough,  scholarly  investigation  of  the  Preaching  of  Peter, 
commenting  on  the  fragments  and  the  literary  discussion  of  them  up 
to  his  writing  in  1893.  He  admits  that  the  fragments  quoted  by  Clement 
and  Origen  under  the  name  “Preaching  of  Peter”  really  belong  to  it! 
Of  the  other  fragments,  he  thinks  the  “  Petri  Doctrine  ”  and  the  “  libellus  ” 
quoted  by  Origen  to  be  probably  the  same  as  “Kerygma  Petri”;  the 
passage  from  Origen ’s  Homily  X  on  Leviticus ,  he  thinks,  may 
(“moeglich”)  belong  to  the  Preaching;  the  passage  from  Optatus 

1  Ibid.,  p.  57:  “Quemadmodum  Petri  Kerygma  iudaizans  Petri  Periodois  auge- 
batur,  ita  etiam  Actis  Apostolorum  canonicis  vel  Lucae  deutero  logo  (Act.  1:1)  Petri 
(Pauli)  Kerygma  additum  esse  videtur,  tanquam  tertius  logos,  qui  Petrum  et  Paulum 
una  Romae  docuisse  vel  praedicasse  et  simul  martyrio  coronatos  esse  narravit.” 

2  The  Apology  of  Aristides ,  by  J.  Rendel  Harris,  Cambridge,  1891;  2d  ed.,  T.S.t 
I,  1  (1893),  PP-  86-99. 

3  See  his  remarks  on  a  similar  occasion,  The  Gospel  According  to  Peter  (1892), 
p.  33:  “And  so  the  new  facts  are  just  what  they  should  be,  if  the  church’s  universal 
tradition  as  to  the  supreme  and  unique  position  of  the  Four  Canonical  Gospels  is  still 
to  be  sustained  by  historical  criticism.” 

4  Theodor  Zahn,  Geschichte  des  neutestamentlichen  Kanons,  II,  2  (1892),  pp.  820-32. 

slbid.,  II,  2,  p.  879;  cf.  pp.  827,  884  f. 

6  A.  Harnack,  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Litcratur,  I  (1893),  25-28. 

7  T.U.,  IX,  2  (1893),  III,  p.  78  f.:  “Die  fuenf  alten  Schriften,  die  den  des  Name 
Petrus  tragen  (I.  Brief,  II.  Brief,  Evangelien,  Apokalypse,  Kerygma),  sind  auf  Grunde 
des  neuen  Fundes  eine  zusammenhaengenden  Untersuchung  zu  unterziehen,  ”  u.s.w. 

8  E.  von  Dobschuetz,  “Das  Kerygma  Petri  kritisch  untersucht, ”  T.U.,  XI 
(Leipzig,  1893),  1. 


6 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


de  schism,  Donat,  i.  5,  he  says,  “als  sehr  zweifelhaft  bezeichnet  werden 
musste”  (p.  134);  “was  in  §§  8-10  folgt  {Strom,  vi.  5.  42  f.,  Pseudo-Cyp. 
De  rehap.  17;  Lact.  Inst.  Div.  iv.  21)  erweist  sich  auch  durch  innere 
Gruende  als  dem  K.P.  fremd”;  and  ascribes  the  “Didaskalia”  to  Peter 
of  Alexandria.  While  reasonably  objecting  to  some  of  Robinson’s 
hasty  conclusions,  Dobschuetz  rather  destructively  controverted  the 
results  of  Hilgenfeld’s  painstaking  work,  and  would  discouragingly  put 
a  forbidding  seal  upon  the  problems  of  the  K.P.  after  it  had  been  by 
himself  “kritish  untersucht,”  thus  setting  constructive  study  of  the 
Preaching  back  two  centuries.  Happily,  however,  Dobschuetz’  too 
rigorous  “Kritik”  did  not  prevail,  and,  as  Hilgenfeld  observed  in  his 
scholarly  criticism,1  Dobschuetz,  decoyed  by  predilection  for  dogmatic 
definitiveness,  had  practically  left  the  problem  where  he  had  found  it. 
Hilgenfeld  had  edited  the  fragments  under  the  title  of  “The  Preaching 
of  Peter  (and  Paul), ”  the  addition  “of  Paul”  being  due  to  the  occurrence 
of  that  name  in  one  of  Clement’s  citations  of  the  Preaching.  Dobschuetz 
(p.  126)  disagrees  with  both  Zahn  and  Hilgenfeld  and  postulates  a 
“Preaching  of  Paul.”  Hilgenfeld  points  out  the  unlikeliness  of 
Dobschuetz’  contention  that  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  should  have  quoted 
the  words  of  a  contemporary,  Peter  of  Alexandria,  as  “the  marvelous 
teaching  of  Peter,”  and  reminds  Dobschuetz  of  his  own  admission  that 
the  words  “  of  Alexandria  ”  had  crept  into  the  manuscript  from  a  marginal 
gloss,  and  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  life  of  Peter  of  Alexandria 
which  would  render  appropriate  to  him  the  allusion  to  “a  weeping 
soul,”  as  there  was  in  the  apostle  Peter’s  denial  of  Jesus  (Mk.  14:72). 
Hilgenfeld  had  found  in  the  treatise  De  rebaptismate  mention  of  a  “con- 
fictus  liber  qui  inscribitur  Pauli  praedicatio,  ”  and  identified  it  with 
Clement’s  reference  to  “the  apostle  Paul  in  the  Preaching  of  Peter” 
{Strom,  vi.  6.  43),  but  thought  the  saying,  “I  am  not  an  incorporeal 
demon,”  to  be  taken  from  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews. 
Dobschuetz  (pp.  68  f.)  contended  that  the  K.P.  was  related  rather  to 
the  Gospel  of  Mark  in  somewhat  the  same  way  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
is  to  Luke’s  Gospel.  He  bases  this  hypothesis  on  the  agreement  of  the 
two  documents  in  point  of  literary  style.  We  will  return  to  this  point  in 
chapter  iv,  when  considering  the  Petrine-Mark  tradition.  E.  Preuschen,2 
in  his  Antilegomena,  gives  the  fragments  found  in  Clement  and  Origen 
and  translates  them  into  German  without  comment. 

1 Z.W.T. ,  I  (1893),  518-41. 

2  Erwin  Preuschen,  Antilegomena z,  Die  Reste  der  ausserkanonischen  Evangelien 
und  urchristlichen  U ' eb er lief erun gen  (Giessen,  1905),  pp.  88-91,  192-94. 


INTRODUCTION 


7 


The  discussion  aroused  by  the  appearance  of  Aristides’  Apology  in 
1890  threw  helpful  light  upon  the  Preaching.  Indirectly  at  least  several 
works  touching  upon  early  Christian  apologetic  contributed  toward  a 
better  understanding  of  its  contents  and  sources.  Wendland  in  his 
article  on  the  Therapeutae,  already  referred  to,1  and  his  “  Philo  und  die 
Kynisch-Stoische  Diatribe,”  prepared  material  and  invited  further 
study.  Collomp2  and  Bousset3  more  directly  served  our  purpose  in 
their  investigation  of  the  sources  of  Clement  and  the  traditional  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  Alexandrine  School.  But  perhaps  the  most  helpful  light  has 
been  shed  upon  the  origin  of  early  Christian  apologetic  by  Geffcken4 * 
in  his  study  of  the  two  apologies  of  Aristides  and  of  Athenagoras.  He 
had  been  well  fitted  for  such  a  task  by  his  preparation  of  the  Sibylline 
Oracles .s  Nor  should  works  like  that  of  M.  Friedlaender6  be  overlooked. 
But  we  shall  have  occasion  to  return  to  these  later. 

1  Paul  Wendland,  loc.  cit. 

2  Collomp,  “Une  Source  de  Clement  d’Alexandrie  et  des  Homelies  Pseudo- 
Clementines,”  Revue  de  philologie  et  de  litterature  et  d’histoire  anciennes,  XXXVII 
(Paris,  1913),  19-46. 

3  W.  Bousset,  Juedisch-christlicher  Schultrieb  in  Alexandria  und  Rom ,  Goettingen, 

1915- 

4  Johann  Geffcken,  Zwei  griechische  Apologeten,  Leipzig,  1907. 

s  J.  Geffcken,  Oracula  Sibyllina,  Leipzig,  1902;  cf.  “Komposition  und  Entstehung 
der  Oracula,”  T.U. ,  XXIII,  1. 

6  Moriz  Friedlaender,  Geschichte  der  juedischen  Apologetik  als  V or geschichte  des 
Christentums ,  Zuerich,  1913;  cf.  Case,  The  Evolution  of  Early  Christianity  (1920), 
pp.  93  f. 


II 

THE  PREACHING’S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


The  Preaching’s  place  in  literature — its  nature,  date,  provenance, 
destination — will  best  be  determined  by  comparing  the  known  fragments 
with  similar  thought  and  language  in  the  literature  from  about  200  b.c. 
to  200  A.D. 

Frag  I.  Edward  Hicks,1  in  his  Traces  of  Greek  Philosophy  in  the 
New  Testament ,  while  apparently  not  thinking  of  this  passage  in  the 
Preaching  of  Peter,  very  appositely  remarks: 

As  logos  with  St.  John,  so  nomos  with  St.  Paul  is  an  oft-repeated  and 
characteristic  word,  and  helps  us  in  the  present  inquiry.  St.  Paul  does  not 
confine  its  use  to  the  Law  of  Moses;  with  him  it  is  a  much  wider  term,  and 
sometimes  almost  personal.  The  word  in  its  ambiguity  and  wider  sense  was 
common  to  the  Greek  and  the  Jewish  world.  In  this  way  it  was  also  itself  a 
“trace”  of  the  Greek  Philosophy.  With  Philo  there  was  not  a  wide  distinction 
between  the  logos  and  the  idea  expressed  in  nomos.  If  the  world  was  created 
by  the  logos ,  by  the  logos  it  was  bound  together,  as  by  an  all-embracing  law 
[cf.  I,  562].2 

It  would  of  course  be  preposterous  to  attempt  to  trace  these  two 
words  through  Greek  and  Jewish  literature.  A  few  references,  however, 
are  necessary  here.  Among  the  Jews,  “the  Law”  meant  more  than 
“the  Torah,”  or  Mosaic  Law.  It  was  God’s  own  eternal  justice  and 
mercy,  goodness  and  truth.  Not  only  was  it  the  object  of  man’s  rever¬ 
ence  and  study,  but  of  the  contemplation  and  admiration  of  God  himself. 
His  “Word”  made  known  his  “Law”  to  men.  As  the  “Word”  was 
all  but  personified,  the  “Law”  was  all  but  adored.  Once  written  down, 
the  very  writing  became  a  most  sacred  object.  Yet  it  was  not  the 
written  words  but  that  which  those  words  revealed  to  man  that  was 
adorable.  Man’s  highest  hope  was  to  understand  and  live  according 
to  God’s  Law.  “All  zeal  for  education  in  the  family,  the  school,  and  the 
synagogue  aimed  at  making  the  whole  people  a  people  of  the  Law.”3 

1  Edward  Hicks,  The  Traces  of  Greek  Philosophy  and  Roman  Law  in  the  New 
Testament  (London,  1896),  p.  51. 

3  Unless  otherwise  indicated  references  are  to  Philonis  Alexandrini  Opera  quae 
supersunt,  ed.  L.  Cohn  et  P.  Wendland,  Berolini,  1896-1915,  I-VI. 

3  Emil  Schuerer,  Geschichte  des  juedischen  Volkes  in  Zeitalter  Jesu  Christi ,  I-III4, 
Leipzig,  1901-9.  English  translation,  II,  387. 


8 


THE  PREACHING’S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


9 


The  Prophets  were  believed  to  be  sent  principally  in  the  interests  of  the 
Law.  The  very  existence  and  perpetuation  of  the  chosen  people  of 
God  was  first  and  most  of  all  for  the  observance  of  the  Law.  If  the 
Messiah  was  to  come,  he  was  to  insure  and  propagate  world-wide 
reverence  and  faithful  keeping  of  the  Law.  All  creation  was  for  the 
manifestation  of  God’s  Law.  Properly  to  understand  and  keep  the 
Law  was  man’s  main  business  on  earth,  and  to  help  him  to  understand 
and  keep  the  Law  was  the  raison  d’etre  of  the  Jewish  religious  institution, 
the  Priests,  the  Prophets,  the  Messiah.  While  the  Law  without  the 
Prophets  would  have  been  unintelligible,  the  Prophets  without  the  Law 
would  never  have  been  at  all;  all  that  was  best  was  summed  up  in  “the  Law 
and  the  Prophets”  (cf.  Mt.  5:17;  7:12;  22:30;  28:19).  The  Golden 
Rule  (Mt.  7:12;  cf.  Talmud,  Sab.  30 b),  “  the  first  and  greatest  command¬ 
ment,”  would  be  appropriately  personified  in  him  who  was  the  fulfilment 
of  Jewish  and  Greek  hope,  as  the  Law  and  the  Logos.  Says  Carl 
Schmidt: 

Der  Schoepfer  des  Menschen  ist  zugleich  der  Offenbarer  des  goettlichen 
Heilswillens,  der  Uebermittler  des  natuerlichen  Sittensgesetzes,  wie  es  in  der 
Entscheidung  fuer  Licht  und  Finsternis,  Gut  und  Boese  vorliegt.  So  war 
der  Herr  in  der  Zeit  vor  seiner  Erscheinung  der  nomos  kai  logos,  wie  er  im 
Kerygma  Petri  genannt  wird,  er  war  der  didaskalos,  dessen  Lehre  den  Menschen 
seit  Adam  bekannt  war.  Und  weil  die  Gebote  Gottes  resp.  des  Logos  im 
A.T.  schriftlich  fixiert  waren,  konnte  es  bereits  Glaeubige  und  Taeter  der 
Gebote  in  der  vorchristlichen  Epoche  geben.1 

After  commenting  on  the  esteem  in  which  the  Jewish  law  was  held 
in  the  first  century  a.d.,  Benn2  remarks: 

Such  assertions  might  be  suspected  of  exaggeration,  were  they  not,  to  a 
certain  extent,  confirmed  by  ...  .  later  writers  ....  showing  that  it  was 
a  common  practice  among  the  Romans  to  abstain  from  work  on  the  Sabbath, 
and  even  to  celebrate  it  by  praying,  fasting,  and  lighting  lamps,  to  visit  the 
synagogues,  to  study  the  law  of  Moses,  and  to  pay  the  yearly  contribution  of 
two  drachmas  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem. 

Ovid,  in  his  Ars  amatoriae  (i.  146),  suggests  the  mental  picture  of  a 
Roman  girl  frequenting  the  Jewish  synagogue,  attracted  by  the  purity 
of  the  law,  and  the  poet  proceeds  to  instruct  the  lover  how  to  break 
her  constancy.  Again,  when  the  unfortunate  lover  is  seeking  a  “reme¬ 
dium  amoris”  (219  f.)  the  poet  encourages  him  to  be  faithful  in  frequent- 

1  Carl  Schmidt,  “Gespraeche  Jesu  mit  seinen  Juengern  nach  der  Auferstehung 
(ein  Katholisch-apostolisches  Sendschreiben  des  2.  Jahrh.),”  r.Z7.,XLIII  (1919),  306  f. 

2  A.  W.  Benn,  The  Greek  Philosophers2  (London,  1914),  p.  490. 


10 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


ing  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath,  no  matter  how  inclement  the  weather. 
Perseus  (v.  i8off.)  contrasts  the  drunken  festivities  of  the  Roman 
Floralia  with  the  more  sober  Jewish  celebrations.  Juvenal  (Sat.  xiv. 
96  ff.)  comments  at  length  on  the  Romans  learning  the  Jewish  law,  to 
the  neglect  of  their  own: 

Quidam  sortiti  metuentem  Sabbata  patrem. 

Nil  praeter  nubes  et  coeli  numen  adorant; 

Nec  distare  putant  humana  carne  suillam, 

Sua  pater  abstinuit;  mox  et  praeputia  ponunt; 

Romanas  autem  soliti  contemnere  leges, 

Judaicum  ediscunt ,  et  servant ,  ac  metuunt  jus , 

Tradidit  arcano  quodcumque  volumine  Moses; 

Non  monstrare  vias,  eadem  nisi  sacra  colenti; 

Quaesitum  ad  fontem  solos  deducere  verpos. 

Horace,  too,  alludes  to  the  commonness  among  the  Romans  of  reverential, 
not  to  say  scrupulous,  fear  of  the  Jewish  law  (Sat.  i.  9.  61  ff.): 

Fuscus  Aristius  occurrit  ....  meliori 
Tempore  dicam:  hodie  tricesima  Sabbata:  nin’ 

Curtis  Judaeis  oppedere  ?  Nulla  mihi,  inquam, 

Religio  est. — At  mi:  sum  paulo  infirmior,  unus 
Multorum;  ignosces;  alias  loquar. — Hunccine  solem 
lam  nigrum  surrexe  mihi!  Fugit  improbus,  ac  me 
Sub  cultro  linquit.  Casu  venit  obvius  illi 
Adversarius:  et,  Quotu,  turpissime?  magna 
Exclamat  voce,  et,  hicci  antestari  ?  Ego  vero 
Oppono  auriculum:  rapit  jus:  clamor  utrinque: 

Undique  concursus.  Sic  me  servavit  Apollo. 

The  Sibyl1  (III,  255  ff.)  portrays  the  Law  given  by  God  on  Mt. 
Sinai  for  all  peoples,  but  insists  that  all  would  go  to  ruin  should  Israel 
fail  to  keep  it  (III,  274  ff.).  Cf.  Ps.  119:92. 

The  ‘'Law”  “converts  souls”  (18:8);  it  is  “truth”  (119:142); 
“fountain  of  life”  (Prov.  13 : 14) ;  they  who  seek  the  Law  will  be  replen¬ 
ished  by  it  (Sir.  32:19);  they  who  love  it  will  enjoy  much  peace  (Ps. 
119:165);  the  Law  will  go  forth  from  Sion  and  the  Logos  from  Jerusalem 
(Isa.  2:3;  Mic.  4:2);  it  will  be  far  off  (Mic.  7:11);  it  will  be  torn  to 
pieces,  and  the  wicked  will  prevail  (Hab.  1:4);  the  islands  afar  off  are 
waiting  for  it  (Isa.  42:4). 

In  the  New  Testament  the  Law  is  opposed  to  sin  in  almost  personal 
conflict  (cf.  Rom.  5:20).  Philo  draws  a  strikingly  similar  contrast 

1  On  the  allegory  of  Sib.,  Ill,  218  ff.,  234-47,  573-95,  see  Friedlaender,  pp.  49  ff. 


THE  PREACHING’S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


ii 


(ii.  195).  “The  perfect  law  of  liberty”  (Jas.  1:25;  cf.  Gal.  5:14)  had 
also  been  spoken  of  by  Philo.1  Rom.  10:4  seems  to  call  Christ  the 
“Perfect  Law”;  “The  End  of  the  Law  is  Christ.”  Gal.  3:24  makes 
“the  Law  a  Pedagogue  unto  Christ.”  Heb.  10:1-10  seems  to  identify 
“the  Law”  with  the  one  “who  comes  into  the  world  to  do  God’s  will.” 

What  the  Law  was  to  the  Jews,  Logos  was  to  the  Greeks.  The 
Logos  theory  had  supplanted  nearly  every  other  as  an  explanation  of 
the  universe.  “Der  Logos  ist  also  nach  den  Bestimmungen  ....  das 
ewige  Gesetz  der  Weltbewegung,  wie  sich  diese  in  dem  Streite,  das 
heist  dem  Umfassen  der  Gegensaetze  zeigt.”2  Logos  with  Heraclitus 
is  both  Nomos  and  Logos,  creating  and  harmonizing  the  universe. 
Logos  is  also  the  principle  of  intelligent  life  in  all  men.3 

Though  Plato4  and  Aristotle  make  no  mention  of  the  Logos  theory, 
it  found  its  way  into  all  the  later  schools  of  Greek  philosophy,  blended 
with  Anaxagoras’  nous ,  Plato’s  idea ,  and  Aristotle’s  physics.  According 
to  the  Stoics  the  cosmos  is  a  living  thing,  and  its  life-principle  is  the 
Logos,  though  it  is  called  nomos  quite  as  frequently.5  Not  only  did 
the  Stoics  commonly  consider  the  Logos  only  one,  but  at  times  almost 
personified  it,  as  the  “Ruler,”  “King”  of  all  things  human  and  divine.6 

1  ii.  452;  Hicks,  op.  cit.,  p.  52;  cf.  Rom.  2:15. 

2  Max  Heintze,  Die  Lehre  vom  Logos  in  der  griechischen  Philo sophie  (Oldenberg, 
1872),  p.  16.  He  quotes  (p.  18)  Stobaeos  (Eel.  i.  60)  for  a  definition  of  Eimarmene: 
“Logos  ek  tes  enantiodromias  demiourgos  ton  onton.”  This  cosmic  principle  Hera¬ 
clitus  sometimes  calls  dike  or  dikaion  (p.  23).  “Fragen  wir  nun  nach  der  eigentlichen 
und  naechsten  Bedeutung  des  Wortes  Logos  bei  Heraklit,  so  konnte  als  solche:  Rede, 
Ausspruch,  oder  Verhaeltniss,  oder  auch  Vernunft  angenommen  werden”  (p.  54). 
But  we  must  not  think  Heraclitus’  Logos  mere  immaterial  thought.  “So  darf  man 
sich  den  Logos  nicht  immaterial!  vorstellen,  umgekehrt  nichts  materielles  ohne  diesen 
Logos,  und  wir  muessen  dennach  dei  Heraklit  trotz  seines  Fortschrittes  gegen  die 
frueheren  Philologen  den  reinsten  Hylozoismus  anerkennen,  ebenso  wie  den  reinsten 
Pantheismus,  mag  nun  das  Feuer  als  Gott  betrachtet  worden  sein,  wie  wir  bei  Clemens 
(Cohort.  42  C)  angefiihrt  finden,  oder  der  Logos,  wie  wir  aus  der  Bezeichnung  ‘goet- 
tlicher  Logos’  bei  Sextus  schliessen  koennen  (Sextus  Math.  vii.  127  fL,  398  ff.)”  (p.  27). 

3  Heraclitus  apud  Sext.  Math.  (Heintze,  op.  cit.,  p.  55). 

4  According  to  Plato  in  one  place  (Diels,  Doxogr.  grace.,  p.  323),  “Eimarmene”  is 
“logos  aidios  kai  nomos  aidios.” 

5  Cf.  Cleanthes,  Hymn  to  Zeus  (Stob.  Eel.  i.  1.  12;  Arnim,  S.V.F.,  I,  537).  Also 
Diog.  Laert.  vii.  88  (Arnim,  I,  43),  with  which  read  Tertullian  A  pol.  21,  and  Lactantius 
Inst.  div.  i.  5.  Minutius  Felix  summarizes  it  thus:  “Zeno  naturalem  legem  atque 
divinarum  ....  omnium  esse  principium”  ( Octavius  19.  10).  The  argument  re¬ 
occurs  frequently  in  Cicero’s  De  natura  dcorum. 

6  Marcianus  lib.  I  institut.  (I,  11,  25,  Mommsen;  Arnim,  I,  314). 


12 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


The  Logos  is  the  source  of  spiritual  power,  of  fate  or  providence,  of 
intelligence  and  virtue  in  man,  and  of  order  and  beauty  in  nature.1 
Indeed  it  identified  nature  and  God.  “Quid  enim  aliud  est  natura 
quam  deus  et  divina  ratio  toti  mundo  partibusque  eius  inserta”  (Seneca 
De  benef.  iv.  7.  1). 

In  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  the  Word  of  the  Lord  had  been  used  in  a 
way  strikingly  similar  to  the  Greek  use  of  Logos.2  “And  God  said:  Be 
light  made”  (Gen.  1:3).  “The  Word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Abraham” 

(Gen.  15:1).  “Hear  this  word:  ....  the  House  of  Israel  is  fallen” 

» 

(Amos  5:1-8).  “By  the  Word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made” 
(Ps.  33:6).  Cf.  Isa.  55:11;  Zach.  5:1-4;  Ps.  106:20;  Ps.  147:15. 
The  Septuagint  translated  all  such  expressions  by  the  Greek  Logos. 
In  rabbinical  Hebrew,  or  Aramean,  literature  the  words  memra  and 
dibbur  are  used  as  close  synonyms  of  Logos.  Quite  generally  the  Targums 
render  “the  Lord”  by  “the  Word  of  the  Lord”  wherever  there  is  any 
implication  of  relation  to  the  world  which  would  seem  incompatible 
with  the  Jewish  concept  of  God.  Thus  Ps.  33:6  is  rendered  (in  Tal. 
Mek.  Beshallah):  “The  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  created  the  world 
by  the  maamar.”  In  the  Targum  on  Gen.  7:16:  “The  memra  brings 
Israel  nigh  unto  God”;  to  Gen.  11:8:  “The  memra  saved  Noe  from  the 
flood”;  to  Isa.  56:13,  it  is  the  memra  who  will  comfort  Jerusalem  “as 
one  whom  a  mother  caresseth”;  to  Zach.  12:5:  “In  the  memra  redemp¬ 
tion  will  be  found.”  So  also  in  Jewish  apocalyptic,  “The  Word  of  the 
Lord  is  sent  by  an  angel  to  Abraham”  (Book  of  Jubilees  12:22);  “Lord, 
Thou  speakest  on  the  first  day  of  creation:  Let  there  be  heaven  and 
earth;  and  Thy  Word  hath  accomplished  the  work”  (IV  Ezra  6:38). 

Under  Greek  influence  in  Alexandria  the  Jews  spoke  not  only 
of  “The  Word  of  the  Lord”  as  coming  to  the  Prophets  and  announced 
by  them  to  the  people,  or  as  creating  and  governing  the  world;  the  Logos 
now  meant  for  them  a  cosmic  principle  giving  existence,  order,  beauty,  life, 
intelligence  to  things,  dwelling  especially  in  the  human  mind,  not  only  dis¬ 
tinguishing  man  from  beast,  but  making  the  human  soul  a  spark,  as  it 
were,  of  divine  life  and  intelligence,  and  mediating  between  God  and 
man.  The  passages  attributed  by  Eusebius  ( Praep .  ev.  xiii)  to  the 
Alexandrine  Jew  Aristobulus,  though  probably  not  older  than  the  middle 

1  Dio  Chrys.  Or.  xxxvi.  37,  apud  Arnim,  II,  1129;  Jamblicus  De  Anima  (Stob. 
Eel.  i.  372;  Arnim,  II,  1128);  and  Stob.  Eel.  i.  79;  Arnim,  II,  913  (cf.  Cic.  De  divinatione 
i.  55-  125). 

2  Cf.  Kohler,  Jewish  Theology  (New  York,  1918),  pp.  197  ff.;  and  his  articles  in 
the  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  “Nemra,”  “Sekeinah,”  and  “Metatron.” 


THE  PREACHINGS  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


13 


of  the  first  century  b.c.,  represent  some  of  the  earliest  extant  attempts 
of  the  Alexandrine  Jews  to  harmonize  Hebrew  revelation  with  Greek 
philosophy  by  means  of  gnostic  allegory.  Wisdom  ( sophia ),  or  Logos, 
is  the  light  which  God  first  created,  in  which  all  other  things  were 
created,  and  in  which  man  is  given  knowledge.1  The  Logos  is  the 
spirit  or  breath  of  God,  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Divine  Spirit.  Jesu  Sirach 
and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  speak  of  the  Logos  in  terms  of  Greek  philoso¬ 
phy  in  a  manner  which  comes  very  near  to  the  meaning  of  the  words 
in  the  Preaching  2 

With  Philo3  the  Logos  is  the  creative  word  of  God;  the  angel  of 
Jehova,  intermediate  between  God  and  the  world;  the  Platonic  idea  of 
ideas;  the  Stoic  world-soul.  In  his  confusion  and  inconsistency,  he  is 
an  unconscious  witness  of  varying  traditions  of  the  Alexandrine  philoso¬ 
phy.  The  upward  trend  which  Posidonius  had  given  to  religious 
thought  is  plainly  discernible  in  Philo. 

Posidonius  was  the  most  influential  teacher  of  philosophy  in  the 
Mediterranean  world  in  the  first  half  of  the  first  century  b.c.  Born 
at  Apamea  in  the  Orontes  valley,  ca.  135  b.c.,  well  read  and  widely 
traveled,  he  combined  what  was  best  of  Oriental  and  Greek  learning 
into  an  eclectic  system  which  directly  affected  the  religious  and  ethical 
thought  of  succeeding  ages.  Astrological  elements  had  been  trans¬ 
planted  from  Chaldean  to  Grecian  soil  by  Berosus,  a  priest  of  Bel,  about 
two  centuries  before.  It  will  be  recalled  that  the  greatest  teachers 
at  the  Stoa  were  from  Tarsus,  where  especially  these  Chaldean  elements 
had  found  a  congenial  abode.  But  at  Posidonius’  time  many,  if  not 
all,  the  schools  of  Greek  philosophy  had  gone  to  impossible  lengths  of 
materialism  and  skepticism,  and  men  who  craved  better  things  willingly 
received  the  new  teaching  which  opened  to  them  a  spiritual  world  of 
beautiful  hopes.  Cumont  says  of  Posidonius: 

Brought  up  on  Plato  and  Aristotle,  he  was  equally  versed  in  Asiatic 
astrology  and  demonology.  More  of  a  theologian  than  a  philosopher,  in  mind 

1  Heintze,  op.  cit.,  pp.  190  ff.,  quoting  Euseb.  Prep.  ev.  xiii.  12.  664  C. 

2Cf.Wisdomof  Solomon,  1:7;  2:2;  7:25;  8:1;  8:4;  8:6;  9:1-10:1;  i8:isf.; 
and  read  M.  Friedlaender,  op.  cit.,  p.  63,  n.  1. 

3  For  the  Logos  in  Philo  cf.  Norman  Bentwitch,  Philo-J  udaeus  of  Alexandria , 
(Philadelphia,  1910),  pp.  144-60;  also  pp.  104-31,  “Philo  and  the  Torah.”  Cf. 
James  Desmond,  Philo  Judaeus  (London,  1888),  I,  27  f.;  II,  156-273.  For  a  detailed 
and  classified  list  of  passages  cf.  C.  G.  L.  Grossman,  Quaestionum  Philoncarum,  etc., 
II,  3  ff.  It  is  remarkable  that  these  writers  make  no  mention  of  Philo’s  indebtedness 
to  Poseidonios.  See  Wm.  Bousset,  Juedisch-christlicher  Schultrieb  in  Alexandria  und 
Rom  (Goettingen,  1915). 


14 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


more  learned  than  critical,  he  made  all  human  knowledge  conspire  to  the 
building  up  of  a  great  system,  the  coping  of  which  was  enthusiastic  adoration 
of  God  who  permeates  the  universal  organism.  In  this  vast  syncretism  all 
superstitions,  popular  or  sacerdotal,  soothsaying,  divination,  magic,  find  their 

place  and  their  justification . The  symbolism  of  Philo  the  Jew  is  often 

inspired  by  his  picturesque  eloquence.1 

Manlius,  Augustus,  Tiberius,  were  his  disciples  in  astrology,  and  it 
was  from  his  teaching  that  the  Emperor  conceived  himself  to  be  “deus 
et  dominus  natus.”  Seneca,  Cicero,  Plutarch,  and  the  other  great 
eclectic  philosophers  continued  his  teaching.  But  it  was  especially 
at  Alexandria  that  the  neo-Pythagoreans  and  neo-Platonists  mediated 
between  his  and  Philo’s  thought.  Between  the  invisible  God  and  the 
world  of  sense  there  intervene  various  grades  of  beings,  angels  and 
archangels,  all  of  which  at  times  Philo  calls  logoi.  Human  souls  are 
such  logoi.  But  it  is  especially  as  mediator  between  God  and  the  world 
that  the  logos  develops  in  Philo’s  thought  from  the  archetype  of  things 
in  the  mind  of  God,  through  the  expression  of  that  divine  idea  as  “the 
son  of  God,”  “the  only-begotten  of  the  Father,”  even  to  “another 
god.”2  This  was  the  crux  of  all  those  theologies  which  attempted  to 
bridge  the  chaos  between  a  transcendent  God  and  the  material  world 
by  the  hypothesis  of  an  intermediate  Creator. 

It  was  doubtless  this  difficulty  which  exposed  the  theological  thought 
of  the  time  to  Hermetic  influence.3  This  literature  has  suffered  much 
transformation  within  Christian  times,  but  it  is  generally  admitted  that 
its  salient  characteristics  are  not  later  than  the  first  century  a.d.  It 
represents  God  creating  the  world  by  his  Logos,  the  Logos  being  his 
Son,  consubstantial  with  him,  the  Father;  it  speaks  of  revelation,  faith, 

1  F.  Cumont,  Astrology  and  Religion  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  (New  York, 
1912),  pp.  84  f. 

2Quaest.  in  Gen.  ii.  62;  Frag.  II,  625;  cf.  Euseb.  Praep  ev.  vii.  13. 

3  Cf.  Her.  Cor.  xi.  11.  There  has  been  of  late  much  discussion  over  the  Hermetic 
Literature.  Cf.  G.  R.  S.  Mead,  Thrice-Greatest  Hermes  (London,  1906);  R.  Reitzen- 
stein,  Poimandres:  Studien  zur  griechisch-agyptischen  und  friihchristlichen  Liter atur 
(Leipzig,  1904);  Die  hellenistischen  Mysterienreligionen  (Leipzig,  1910),  pp.  19,  93  ff., 
1 13,  155  f.,  158  f.;  Zwei  Religions geschichtliche  Fragen  (Leipzig,  1910),  pp.  83-111; 
G.  Parthey,  Hermetis  Trismegisti  Poemander  (Berlin,  1854);  R.  Pietschmann,  Hermes 
Trismegistus  nach  agyptischen  und  orientalischen  Uherliefer ungen  (Leipzig,  1875). 
Cf.  Her.  Cor.  i.  6.  8  f.,  10,  12,  21-27,  29  f->  32;  ii-  5-  12,  14  f->  1 75  iii-  1;  iv.  1.  3-6,  8; 
v.  11;  viii.  5:  ix.  10;  x.  7,  9,  14,  24,  25;  xi.  11,  14,  22;  xii.  7.  8,  18,  20  f.;  xiii.  3  f. 
7,  14  f.,  17,  21  f.;  xiv.  8.  10. 


THE  PREACHING’S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


15 


repentance,  baptism,  grace,  regeneration,  in  language  familiar  to  Chris¬ 
tian  theology.  Especially  like  our  Preaching  is  the  use  of  Logos.1 

Philo  holds  firm  to  his  belief  in  one  God,  but  he  yields,  as  do  Justin 
and  some  other  early  Christian  theologians,  to  the  extent  of  admitting 
some  sort  of  divinities  between  God  and  man,  especially  the  Logos- 
Archangel,  of  whom  he  speaks  in  language  at  once  reminding  one  of  the 
Hermetic  Literature  and  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.2  Philo’s  beautiful 
allegory,  “The  Lord  Is  My  Shepherd,”  applied  to  the  Logos,  anticipates 
the  Christian  “Good  Shepherd”  parables.3  But  “the  Lord”  he  is 
speaking  of  here  is  not  “the  Supreme  Father,”  but  that  “other  god,” 
of  whom  he  speaks  “en  Katakresei.”4  This  is  the  “Logos  mesites” 
of  whom  he  speaks  in  his  commentary  on  Deut.  5:2. 

In  the  New  Testament  we  find  nothing  to  compare  with  the  K.P. 
Logos,  except  in  the  writings  of  John.5  “In  the  beginning  was  the 
Logos,  and  the  Logos  was  with  God,  and  the  Logos  was  God  ”  (Jo.  1:1). 
“The  Logos  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  saw  his  glory, 
glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  from  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth” 
(1:14).  In  the  Apocalypse  (19:13-16)  is  seen  a  white  horse;  and  the 
rider’s  name  is  “Faithful”  and  “True.”  His  garments  are  sprinkled 
with  blood,  and  his  name  is  “the  Logos  of  God.”  Like  the  Logos  in 
Wisdom  (18:15-16),  he  is  a  conqueror.  On  his  garments  is  written, 
“the  King  of  Kings  and  Lord  of  Lords.” 

Aristides’  Apology 6  repeatedly  uses  nomos  and  logos  in  a  way  that 
suggests  the  Preaching.  There  is  a  passage  in  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias1 
which  is  certainly  related  to  this  passage  of  the  K.P.  “This  tree,  large 
and  shading  the  plains  and  the  mountains  and  all  the  earth,  is  the  Law 
(nomos)  of  God  given  to  the  whole  world;  and  this  Law  is  the  Son  of 
God,  preached  to  the  ends  of  the  earth;  and  the  people  that  are  under 
the  shade  are  they  that  have  heard  the  Preaching  and  believed  on  him.” 
Compared  with  K.P.  VI  and  VII,  the  Shepherd  seems  to  be  quoting 

1  Her .  Cor.  i.  9,  10,  12,  21;  iv.  4;  cf.  Just.  1  Ap.  22.  2. 

2  De  agric.  i.  308,  Quis  rer.  div.  haeres  sit  i.  501  ff.,  apud  Grossmann,  Quest.  Phil., 
II,  57. 

3  Cf.  Friedlander,  op.  cit.,  pp.  71  ff.  4  See  p.  14,  n.  2. 

5  Jo.  1: 1,  14;  cf.  I  Jo.  1:1;  Apoc.  19:13-16,  22,  13;  cf.  E.  F.  Scott,  The  Fourth 
Gospel  (Edinburgh,  1906),  pp.  145-75;  Hastings,  Diet.  Bibl.,  art.  “Logos.” 

6  Aristides  Apol.  xiii.  7,  suggests  our  passage  of  the  K.P.  by  the  repetition  of 
nomoi  and  logoi. 

7  Pastor  Hermae.  Sim.  viii.  3.2. 


i6 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


“the  Preaching”  by  name.  The  Letter  to  Diognetus1  speaks  of  “the 
invisible  God  sending  to  men  His  Logos  ....  not  an  angel  ....  but 
the  creator  (■ demiourgos )  of  all  things.”  Melito2  uses  nomos  and  logos 
in  suggestive  proximity.  The  “old  books”  he  mentions  agree  fairly 
well  in  contents  with  the  Preaching  and  the  books  with  which  it  appears 
in  Clement.  Justin3  uses  logos  in  a  way  that  evinces  his  familiarity  with 
the  meaning  it  has  in  K.P.  and  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  mentions  its 
use  in  the  Hermetic  Literature  and  by  Valentinus  and  others.  Tatian4 
speaks  of  the  nomos  of  God  and  “the  power  (< dynamis )  of  His  Logos.” 
Athenagoras5  speaks  of  “the  logos  of  the  Father,  the  Son  of  God,”  and 
human  and  divine  nomos  and  logos.  Carl  Schmidt,  in  The  Sayings  of 
Jesus ,  Aetheopic,  c.  17,  says:  “Ich  bin  sein  vollkommenes  Wort”; 
Coptic:  “Ich  bin  der  Logos,  ich  bin  ihm  geworden  ein  Etwas.”6 

Frag.  II.  That  there  is  “  one  God ”  is  too  common  in  Scripture  for 
comment.  The  Sibyl  frequently  and  emphatically  insists  “there  is 
one  God.”7  The  Jews  clung  tenaciously  to  this  belief,  at  least  in  theory,8 
even  if  the  charge  was  frequently  preferred  against  them,  as  we  shall 
see  (IV),  that  they  adored  angels,  and  Philo  found  himself,  as  has  already 
been  observed,  struggling  with  the  same  “other  God”  difficulty  which 
the  Jew  Trypho  in  the  Dialogue  (54.  2)  makes  Justin  try  in  vain  to  refute.9 
The  Jew  Trypho  says  to  Justin  {Dial.  50):  “You  seem  to  have  come 
out  of  a  great  conflict  with  many  persons  about  all  these  points  we  have 
been  searching  into  and  therefore  quite  ready  to  return  answers  to  all 

questions  put  to  you . How  can  you  show  that  there  is  another  god 

besides  the  maker  of  all  things?  And  then  you  will  show  that  he 
submitted  to  be  born  of  the  Virgin.”  Justin  replies,  quoting  Isa.  39:8; 

1  Ep.  ad  Diogn.  vii.  1-2. 

2  Melito  iii  (Goodspeed,  Die  aeltesten  Apologeten,  p.  309). 

3  Justin  Appendix  6.  3;  cf.  10. 1;  Dial.  93.3,105:11;  121:2;  122:1-2,5;  123:1-2. 
I  Apol.  10:6;  14:5;  23:2;  32:8;  32:10;  36: 1  (cf.  34:8);  46:2-6;  63:4;  63:10,15. 
Specially  noteworthy  is  the  allusion  to  Hermes  in  22: 1-2;  cf.  Dial.  54:2.  The  mention 
of  the  “heretics,”  including  Valentinian,  in  connection  with  this  teaching  in  Dial. 
35:6,  is  also  noteworthy. 

4  Tatian  Or  alio  ad  Graeco  s  vii.  2. 

3  Athenagoras  Supplzcatzo  10.  2,  cf.  16.  2,  24.  1,  4*  3>  iQ*  r  2,  32.  ^* 

6  Carl  Schmidt,  “Gespraeche  Jesu,”  T.U.,  XLIII,  p.  56;  cf.  c.  30,  p.  129. 

7  Sib.,  Frag.  I,  7  f.  (Geffcken’s  text);  cf.  Frag.  I,  32  ff.;  Frag.  Ill,  3  ff.,  n  ff. 

8  W.  Bousset,  Die  Religion  des  Judentums  im  neutestementlichen  Zeitalter2  (Berlin, 
1906),  pp.  347-67- 

9  Aet.  Plac.  i.  7.  32  f.,  Diels. 


THE  PREACHING’S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


17 


40:1-17.  Trypho  says  it  is  ambiguous,  impertinent.  Justin  admits 
that  it  is,  unless  viewed  in  its  fulfilment  in  Christ,  and  he  reviews  at 
length  the  Scripture  proofs  of  his  opinion,  insisting  that  Christ  is  god 
because  “his  blood  is  from  the  power  of  God,  not  seed  of  man,  not  a 
man  of  men,  begotten  in  the  ordinary  course  of  humanity”  {Dial.  54). 
Trypho  asks  proof  which  is  not  allegorical  {Dial.  55),  and  Justin  promises 
to  give  it,  but  goes  into  a  lengthy  discussion  of  the  divine  generation  of 
the  Logos,1  and  draws  parallel  instances  from  Greek  mythology  of  gods 
being  born  of  virgins,  as  Perseus  of  Danae  {Dial.  67),  and  tells  Trypho 
he  should  be  ashamed  to  claim  less  for  Jesus,  and  accuses  the  Jews  of 
having  cut  out  of  the  Scriptures  those  portions,  still  found  in  the  Septu- 
agint,  foretelling  the  circumstances  of  the  birth  and  life  and  death  of 
Christ  {Dial.  71).  Justin  further  compares  and  contrasts  the  Christian 
beliefs  about  Jesus  with  the  Greek  mythology  about  Dionysus  and 
Hercules  “who  died  and  rose  again  and  ascended  to  heaven”  (where 
it  is  interesting  to  note  the  Chaldean  influence  over  Greek  mythology, 
introducing  the  idea  of  “ascension  to  heaven”  in  addition  to  dying  and 
“going  down”  to  Hades  and  “coming  up”  to  life  again).  But  that 
Justin  does  not  mean  to  say  that  Jesus  is  God,  in  the  full  sense  that  he 
speaks  of  God  the  Father,  is  plain  from  what  he  says  in  Appendix  6, 
where  he  excludes  even  a  name  of  God,  so  transcendent  is  He:  “The 
appellation  God  is  not  a  name.  He  is  older  than  any  name.  Father, 
God,  Creator,  Lord,  Ruler,  are  not  names,  but  words  of  praise  or  designa¬ 
tions  of  functions.  But  His  Son,  who  is  alone  called  Son  by  the  Lord, 
the  Logos  begotten  before  all  creatures  ....  is  called  Christ  from 

being  anointed . Jesus,  the  name  of  the  man  and  Savior,  has 

significance.”  And  in  the  Apology  (chap.  61)  he  says:  “No  one  can 
utter  the  name  of  the  ineffable  God ;  and  if  any  one  dare  say  that  there 
is  a  name,  he  raves  with  hopeless  madness.” 

Similarly,  the  objection  of  Celsus:  “How  should  we  deem  him  a 
god  who  ....  performed  none  of  his  promises  ....  was  condemned 
....  was  found  attempting  to  conceal  himself,  endeavoring  to  escape 
....  was  betrayed  by  his  own  disciples?”  Origen  answers  (ii.  9): 

Even  we  do  not  suppose  the  body  of  Jesus  to  have  been  god  ....  nor 

even  his  soul . God  is  believed  to  be  He  who  employs  the  soul  and 

body  of  the  Prophet  as  an  instrument  ....  as  the  Greeks  consider  God  to 
speak  through  the  Pythian  priestess.  So,  in  our  opinion,  it  was  the  Logos 
God,  the  Son  of  the  God  of  all  things,  who  spoke  in  Jesus  these  words:  “I  am 
the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life.”  ....  We  therefore  charge  the  Jews  with 


1  Just.  Dial.  61.  1,  3. 


i8 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


not  acknowledging  him  to  be  god,  to  whom  testimony  was  borne  in  many 
scriptures  by  the  Prophets,  that  he  was  a  mighty  Power  of  God,  and  a  god 
next  to  the  God  and  Father  of  all. 

Like  Justin  (Appendix  6)  above  quoted,  Origen  (c.  Cels.  ii.  64)  says: 
“Although  Jesus  was  only  a  single  individual,  he  was  nevertheless  more 
things  than  one,  according  to  the  different  points  from  which  he  might 
be  regarded.” 

Athenagoras,  refuting  the  heathen  calumny  that  the  Christians 
were  atheists,  says  {Sup pi.  10) : 

The  Christians  believe  in  God  and  in  His  Son,  the  Logos,  who  is  the  first 
product  of  the  Father,  not  as  having  been  brought  into  existence  (for  from  the 
beginning,  God,  Who  is  eternal  Mind,  had  the  Logos  in  Himself).  ....  But 
inasmuch  as  he  came  forth  to  be  the  idea  and  energizing  power  of  all  things 

material,  which  lay  like  fallow  land . The  Holy  Spirit  also  ....  we 

assert  to  be  an  effluence  of  God.  ....  We  recognize  also  a  multitude  of 
angels  and  ministers  ....  to  occupy  themselves  about  the  elements. 

“Poets  and  philosophers  have  not  been  counted  atheists  for  inquiring 
concerning  God  in  His  works,  by  whose  Spirit  they  are  governed,  teaching 
He  must  be  one”  (chap.  5).  “Plato,  Aristotle,  and  the  Stoics  .  .  .  . 
teach  that  matter  is  permeated  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  Who  is  one;  for 
God  is  an  artistic  fire,  advancing  methodically  to  the  production  of  the 
several  things  in  the  world  by  His  spermatic  logoi” — a  common  opinion 
of  the  Stoics. 

However,  we  must  not  underrate  the  correctness  of  the  heathen 
accusation  that  the  Jews  “worshiped  no  gods,”  on  which  account 
principally  they  were  persecuted,  as  we  know  from  Philo’s  and  Josephus’ 
answer  to  Appion’s  (ii.  6)  charge:  “Quomodo  ergo  si  sunt  cives,  eosdem 
deos  quos  Alexandrini  non  colunt?”  as  we  shall  see  when  speaking  of 
Jewish  apologetic.  Indeed,  much  of  Philo’s  work  is  apparently  in  defense 
of  Jewish  monotheism.  The  same  may  be  said  of  many  of  the  Old 
Testament  canonical  books;  certainly  of  those  written  in  Alexandria. 
Read,  for  instance,  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Wisdom.  In  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  faith  in  one  God  is  earnestly  insisted  upon.  Paul  nowhere  calls 
Jesus  God,  though  he  places  him  “above  all  things,”  next  to  “God 
blessed  forever,”  to  be  whose  people  is  the  crowning  privilege  of  Israel.1 
Matthew,  John,  and  Luke  become  apologists  of  monotheism  while  main¬ 
taining  the  divinity  of  Christ. 

1  Rom.  9:3-5;  cf.  Col.  1:15;  Jo.  17:3;  Mt.  4:1-10,  the  temptation  culminating 
in  Jesus’  words  (Deut.  32:43,  LXX,  “the  Lord  God  shalt  thou  adore,  and  Him  only 
shalt  thou  serve,”  etc.),  Rom.  3:30;  I  Cor.  8:4-6. 


THE  PREACHING’S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


19 


Nor  was  such  apologetic  anything  new.  Not  only  the  Jews,  but 
the  Greek  philosophers  had  been  contending  for  monotheism.  Cleanthes’ 
beautiful  hymn  to  Zeus  reiterates  the  oneness  of  God.  Plutarch1  quotes 
the  opponents  of  Epicurus,  insisting  that  “God  is  not  only  immortal 
and  blessed,  but  also  philanthropic,  kind,  and  beneficent”;  and  himself 
appeals  to  Chrysippos  and  Cleanthes  in  support  of  his  opinion  that 
“heaven,  and  earth,  and  air,  and  sea,  of  all  these  there  is  nothing 
imperishable  and  eternal  but  the  one  only  God.”2  Diogenes  Laertius3 
repeats  the  old  opinion  that  “there  is  one  God,  and  Mind,  and  Fate, 
and  Zeus.”  The  Stoics  quite  generally  were  pantheists,  in  the  sense 
that  they  thought  the  universe  one  living  Thing,  though  some  preferred 
a  dualistic  concept.  The  neo-Pythagoreans  and  neo-Platonists,4  under 
the  influence  of  Posidonius,  took  a  more  spiritual  view  of  the  world, 
which  was  rather  eclectic  to  the  extent  of  admitting  both  monotheists 
and  polytheists.  Nor  is  it  always  possible  to  say  whether  a  particular 
philosopher,  Cicero,  Seneca,  Plutarch,  is  really  a  monotheist,  a  deist, 
an  agnostic,  or  what. 

Apparently  there  was  little,  if  any,  practical  monotheism  among  the 
common  people  of  this  period.  Indeed  we  witness  a  painful  struggle 
coming  upon  the  Christian  church  when  it  begins  to  insist  strictly  on 
the  monotheism  it  had  inherited  in  philosophical  theory  rather  than  in 
popular  practice.  Various  epithets  were  used  to  distinguish  “the 
Great  God,”  just  as  the  pagans  spoke  of  “Jupiter  Optimus  Maximus.” 
Between  “the  Great  God”  and  the  world  of  man  there  were  countless 
beings  of  superior  powers,  and  these  the  pagans,  even  while  contending 
for  monotheism,  called  “gods”  (I  Cor.  8:4-6).  The  Jews  called  them 
“angels,”  and  the  Christian  writers  borrowed  or  created  terminology 
as  the  occasion  demanded,  till  at  length  authority  fixed  the  terminology 
of  the  “Trinity  of  Persons”  and  “Unity  of  Nature”  of  God. 

The  Shepherd  of  Hernias  ( Mand .  i.  1)  has  something  very  like  this 
passage  of  the  K.P.  “First  of  all,  believe  that  there  is  one  God,”  etc. 
Aristides  repeatedly  affirms  there  is  one  God  ( Apol .  1.3;  13.  5).  Simi¬ 
larly  Justin  (I  Apol .  16.  6):  “It  is  right  to  worship  the  one  God”; 
Athenagoras  ( Suppl .  6.  4)  commends  the  Stoics  for  acknowledging  one 
God,  and  says  (8.  1):  “We  know  and  rightly  believe,  there  is  one  God”; 

1  Plutarch  De  Com.  Not.  c.  32,  p.  1075  e  (Arnim,  II,  1126). 

3  Ibid.  c.  31,  p.  1066  a  (Arnim,  I,  n.  536). 

3  Diog.  Laert.  vii.  135  (Arnim,  II,  n.  280). 

4E.  Zeller,  Die  Philosophic  der  Griechen 4,  III,  2  (Leipzig,  1903),  pp.  129  ff. 


20 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


and  he  sets  about  to  demonstrate  (8.1)  that  more  than  one  God  is 
impossible. 

“In  the  beginning  God  created  heaven  and  earth”  (Gen.  1:1)  was 
a  familiar  expression  in  Hebrew  Scripture.  But  the  “Beginning,” 
Arche?  like  the  logos,  was  an  expression  of  Greek  philosophy.  It  is 
used  in  both  meanings  in  the  Johannine  writings:  Jo.  1:1,  “In  the 
beginning”  is  apparently  the  Hebrew  use;  8:25,  “The  Beginning,  who 
also  speak  to  you,”  Apoc.  1:8;  3:14,  seem  to  be  the  Greek  meaning. 
This  would  also  seem  to  be  the  meaning  of  Heb.  1 : 10,  and  possibly  of 
II  Pet.  3:4.  The  Hermetic  Literature  is  familiar  with  this  usage;  for 
instance,  x.  14;  “From  one  Arche  all  things  come,  but  the  Arche  comes 
from  the  One  and  Only  (God),”  etc.  Justin  (I  Apol.  28.  3;  55.  6)  and 
Tatian  {Oral,  ad  Gr.  5.  1-2)  speak  of  God  creating  “the  Arche,”  “the 
Beginning.”  Justin  (I  Apol.  67.  7)  says  God  created  the  cosmos  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  But  in  Dial.  61  he  says,  more  in  accord  with  K.P.: 

God,  (in  ?)  the  Beginning,  before  all  creatures,  begot  of  Himself  a  certain 
Logical  Power,  which  is  called  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Glory  of  the  Lord,  the 
Son,  Wisdom,  Angel,  the  God,  the  Lord,  the  Logos,  and  on  one  occasion  (when 
he  appeared  in  human  form  to  Josue  the  son  of  Nun)  calls  himself  “Captain.” 
.  ...  He  was  begotten  of  the  Father,  by  an  act  of  His  Will  ....  just  as 
we,  when  we  utter  a  word,  beget  the  word.1 2 

These  attributes  of  God  are  met  with  wherever  is  found  belief  in  a 
personal  God,  but  there  is  something  unique  in  the  evenness  of  balance 
with  which  the  Creator  and  creature  are  contrasted  in  the  K.P.  The 
passage  is  strikingly  similar  in  expression  to  Wisdom,  9:1-3;  10:1; 
13:1-2;  Sibyl,  Frags.  I,  7-9;  II,  1-3;  III,  11-16;  the  Secrets  of  Enoch 
(48:5);  “From  the  invisible  He  made  all  things  visible,  Himself  being 
invisible”  (cf.  Heb.  11:3);  Rom.  1:20;  Jo.  1:18:  “God  no  one  ever 
has  seen”;  (Acts  17:24!.);  the  Book  of  Jubilees  (12:2);  Aristides 
Apology  (1.  3  f.): 

Ilium  vero  qui  mundum  moveat  dico  Deum  omnium  rerum  esse,  qui 

propter  hominem  omnia  fecit . Dico  tamen  Deum  ingenitum,  increatum 

esse,  ab  nullo  comprehensum  esse  sed  ipsum  omnia  comprehendere,  autogenes 
eidos,  sine  initio  et  sine  fine  (immutabilem) ,  immortalem,  absolutum,  qui 

1  For  the  use  of  this  word  in  Gk.  Philos,  as  the  active  principle  of  creation,  see  in 
Aristotles’  Physics  f.  9,  p.  326. 

2  The  Shepherd,  Mand.  1.  1.  Similar  allusions  to  believe  in  one  God  are  found  in 
Ign.  Mgn.  viii.  2;  Alterc,  Sim.  et  Theoph.,  I,  4,  6;  Jas.  et  Papisc;  Iren.  Adv.  haer. 
ii.  1.  2:  II  Clem.  ii.  12;  xvi.  2.  10;  Theoph.  Ad  Antol.  i.  3. 


THE  PREACHING’S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


21 


comprehendi  non  possit.  Quod  vero  absolutum  eum  dico  significat  defectum 
in  eo  non  esse,  et  ei  nihil  opus  esse,  sed  omnia  eo  egere.  Et  quod  eum  sine 
initio  esse  dico  significat  omnia  quae  initium  habeant  finem  quoque  habere, 

et  quod  finem  habeat  dissolubile  esse . Coelum  eum  non  continet,  sed 

coelum  et  omnia  visibilia  et  invisibilia  in  eo  continentur . Immobilis  is 

est,  infinitus  et  ineffabilis,  non  est  enim  locus  unde  et  quo  moveri  possit, 
neque  quasi  mensurabilis  ab  ullo  latere  definitur  neque  circuitur,  file  enim 
est  qui  omnia  complet  et  omnia  visibilia  et  invisibilia  transcendit. 

Similarly  13.  8,  and  the  Letter  to  Diagnetus  7.  2;  Justin  ( Apol .  10.  1; 
14.  1-2;  67.  7,  64.  2-5)  compares  God’s  creation  of  the  world  by  his 
Logos  to  the  birth  of  Athena  from  the  head  of  Zeus  and  (Dial.  127.  2): 
“The  ineffable  Father  and  Lord  of  all  neither  comes  nor  goes,  nor  sits 
down,  nor  stands  up,  but,  in  some  way,  remains  in  His  place,  immovable, 
though  He  sharply  sees  and  keenly  hears  everything,  and  observes  all 
things”;  and  he  goes  on  to  say  that  the  one  who  walked  with  Adam  in 
Paradise,  shut  Noe  in  the  ark,  appeared  to  Abraham,  and  spoke  to 
Moses,  was  not  God  the  Father  but  the  Son,  the  Angel,  who  became  man 
of  the  Virgin;  no  man  has  ever  seen  God  the  Father.  Tatian  (Oral, 
ad  Gr.  5.  1-2;  7.  1-2;  18.  2)  says  God  created  all  things  in  the  beginning 
by  the  power  of  his  Logos,  and  (4)  mentions  divine  attributes  similar 
to  those  in  K.P.  Athenagoras  ( Suppl .  10.  1-2)  says,  defending  Christians 
against  the  charge  of  atheism:  “We  are  not  atheists,  seeing  that  we 
acknowledge  one  God  uncreated,  eternal,  invisible,  impassible,  incom¬ 
prehensible,  illimitable  ....  also  a  Son  of  God”;  and  goes  on,  at  this 
suggestion,  to  remark:  “Nor  let  anyone  think  it  ridiculous  that  God 
should  have  a  son;  for,  though  the  poets  in  their  fictions  represent  the 
gods  as  no  better  than  men,  our  mode  of  thinking  is  not  the  same  as 

theirs . The  Son  of  God  is  the  Logos  of  the  Father,  in  idea  and 

in  operation.” 

Frag.  III.  The  difficulties  in  the  reading  of  this  fragment  will  be 
considered  later  on.  The  translation  given  above  is  as  close  as 
possible  to  the  reading  as  it  stands  in  Clement.  Many  of  the  alterations 
which  have  been  suggested  by  commutators  are  not  needed  and  often 
are  not  warranted. 

This  diatribe  against  idol  and  animal  worship  was  such  a  common¬ 
place  in  both  Greek  and  Jewish  literature  that  it  is  difficult  to  detect 
resemblances  close  enough  to  warrant  conclusion  as  to  relation. 
Plutarch,  for  instance,  in  Is.  et  Osir.  (cc.  66,  67,  71,  73,  76,  77)  dwells 
upon  the  folly  of  such  worship,  while  calling  the  attention  of  the  Greeks, 
who  ridicule  the  Egyptian  worship  of  animals,  to  the  fact  that  animals 


22 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


are  quite  as  appropriate  images  of  God  as  are  lifeless  idols;  animals 
ought  not  to  be  worshiped  by  man,  for  they  are  his  inferiors;  and  yet 
they  are  superior  to  idols,  inasmuch  as  they  are  living  things.  He  would 
tolerate  worship  of  both,  if  it  helps  to  avoid  atheism,  and  does  not  lead 
to  superstition.  See  also  his  whole  treatise  on  superstitions.  Horace 
(Sat.  i.  8.  i  ff.)  is  a  good  example  of  the  educated  pagan’s  attitude 
toward  idols: 

Olim  truncus  eram  ficulnus,  inutile  lignum: 

Cum  faber,  incertus  scamnum  faceretne  Priapum, 

Maluit  esse  deum.  Deus  inde  ego,  furum  aviumque 
Maxima  formido;  nam  fures  dextra  coercet, 

Obscaenoque  ruber  porrectus  ab  inguine  palus; 

Ast  importunas  volucres  in  vertice  arundo 
Terret  fixa,  vetatque  novis  considere  in  hortis. 

Juvenal  also  gives  us  a  sample  of  what  the  Romans  of  his  type 
thought  of  Egyptian  animal  worship  (Sat.  xv.  i  ff .) : 

Quis  nescit,  Volusi  Bithynice,  qualia  demens 
Aegyptus  portenta  colat  ?  Crocodilon  adorat 
Pars  haec:  ilia  pavet  saturam  serpentibus  ibin. 

Effigies  sacri  nitet  aurea  cercopitheci, 

Dimidio  magicae  resonant  ubi  Memnonechordae, 

Atque  vetus  Thebe  centum  jacet  obruta  portis. 

Illic  caeruleos,  hie  piscem  fluminis,  illic 
Oppida  tota  canem  venerantur,  nemo  Dianam. 

Porrum  et  caepe  nefas  violare  et  frangere  morsu. 

O  sanctas  gentes,  quibus  haec  nascuntur  in  hortis 
Numina!  Lanatis  animalibus  abstinet  omnis 
Mensa,  nefas  illic  fetum  jugulare  capellae: 

Carnibus  humanis  vesci  licet. 

Similarly  Josephus  (c.  Apion.  i.  28):  “King  Amenophis  desired  to 
see  the  gods  ?  What  gods,  I  pray,  did  he  desire  to  see  ?  If  he  meant 
the  gods  whom  their  laws  ordained  to  be  worshiped,  the  ox,  the  goat, 
the  crocodile,  and  the  baboon,  he  saw  them  already.”  The  Epistle  of 
Jeremy  says  idols  are  dumb  (8),  cannot  keep  themselves  from  rust  and 
moth  (12);  the  dust  clings  to  their  face  till  someone  wipes  it  off  (14); 
they  are  of  no  more  use  than  a  broken  vessel  (17);  they  have  to  be 
guarded,  lest  they  be  stolen  out  of  the  temple  (18);  they  are  bought 
for  a  price  (25);  have  to  be  carried  about,  and  if  they  fall  they  cannot 
get  up  (27);  they  are  defiled  by  impure  touch  (29);  they  cannot  show 


THE  PREACHINGS  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


23 


mercy  to  the  widow  nor  do  good  to  the  orphan  (38) ;  beasts  are  better, 
for  they  can  get  under  shelter  and  help  themselves  (69).  The  Letter  of 
Aristeas1  says:  “All  other  men  besides  us  [Jews]  think  there  are  many 
gods  ....  which  they  adore  foolishly,  making  idols  out  of  stone  and 
wood,  saying  that  these  images  can  afford  them  something  helpful 

for  life . ”  Tobit  (14:8)  alludes  to  gentile  idols;  Baruch  (6:38  f.) 

speaks  of  the  Babylonian  gods  of  wood  and  stone,  of  gold  and  silver, 
and  says  that  they  who  worship  them  shall  be  confounded,  and  bewails 
their  pitiable  folly.  Ezekiel  (21:21)  sarcastically  alludes  to  the 
Babylonian  King  “seeking  divination,  shuffling  arrows,  inquiring  of 
idols,  and  consulting  entrails.”  Daniel  (3)  tells  of  the  great  statue  of 
gold  and  (14)  of  Bel  and  the  dragon.  It  is  also  on  account  of  their 
idolatry  that  IV  Esdras  (13:49)  says  the  Gentiles  have  no  hope  of 
salvation,  and  the  Secrets  of  Enoch  (c.  99)  damns  everything  Greek 
and  compares  the  Septuagint  to  the  golden  calf.  In  the  Book  of  Jubilees 
(12:1-5)  Abraham  exhorts  Terah  not  to  worship  idols: 

What  help  or  profit  have  you  from  those  idols  you  worship  and  before 
which  you  bow?  There  is  no  spirit  in  them.  They  are  dumb  forms,  and 
mislead  the  heart.  Worship  them  not.  Worship  the  God  of  heaven  Who 
causes  the  rain  and  the  dew  to  descend  on  the  earth,  and  does  everything  upon 
the  earth,  and  has  created  everything  by  His  Word,  and  all  life  is  from  before 
His  face.  Why  do  you  worship  things  that  have  no  spirit  in  them  ?  for  they 
are  the  work  of  men’s  hands,  and  on  your  shoulders  do  you  bear  them,  and 
you  have  no  help  from  them,  but  they  are  a  great  cause  of  shame  to  those  who 
make  them,  and  a  misleading  of  the  heart  to  those  who  worship  them. 

Wisdom  abounds  in  polemic  against  idolatry  (13:1-2;  13:10-11;  13:16- 
19;  14:1-4;  14:8;  14:11;  14: 15-20,  23-29;  i5:5;  i5:7-9;  i5:i7-i9)> 
pointing  out  the  folly  of  worshiping  man-made  images  of  wood  and  stone, 
gold  and  silver,  which  are  worthless  and  helpless.  The  reference 
(14:15-16)  to  the  image  an  afflicted  father  erected  to  his  son  who  had 
been  suddenly  taken  away,  which  began  to  be  worshiped  as  a  god, 
and  this  worship  commanded  by  tyrants,  was  instanced  in  the  case  of 
Antonius  referred  to  by  Justin  ( Apol .  29.  4),  Tatian  ( Or  at .  ad  Gr.  10.  1) 
and  Athenagoras  ( Suppl .  30.  2).  Emperor  worship  seems  to  be  meant 
by  Wisdom  14:17  ff.  The  Sibyl  (III,  545-62)  pleads:  “Greece,  .  .  .  . 
why  do  you  offer  sacrifice  to  gods  that  are  dead?”  Frag.  Ill,  7  ff., 
has  much  in  common  with  K.P.  Philo  pleads  with  men  of  reason  not 
to  dishonor  God  by  thinking  dead  images  and  irrational  animals  or 


1  Aristeas  Ep.  134,  137. 


24 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


even  the  elements  and  the  celestial  bodies  are  like  him  ( De  ebietat.  28). 
The  theme  of  his  treatise  on  the  Therapeutae,  or  On  the  Contemplative 
Life ,  seems  to  be  the  contrast  of  worship  of  God  in  spirit  with  worship 
of  idols  in  drunkenness.  We  have  the  trite  repetition  of  the  folly 
of  worshiping  idols  of  wood  and  stone  and  silver  and  gold,  and  animals 
without  reason.  Similarly  in  his  De  legatione  ad  Caium  he  deplores 
the  foolishness  of  idolatry  and  pleads  for  the  Jews  who  worship  God. 

Rom.  1:21  ff.  refers  to  those  who  in  their  foolishness  have  changed 
the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  into  the  likeness  of  corruptible  man 
and  of  fowls  and  quadrupeds  and  creeping  things,  and  have  worshiped 
the  creature  rather  than  the  Creator,  and  I  Cor.  10:7  warns  against 
idolatry.  In  Acts  17:29,  Paul  says  to  the  Athenians,  “We  should  not 
think  what  is  divine  to  be  like  what  is  made  of  gold,  or  silver,  or  stone, 
the  work  of  art  and  of  human  skill.”  And  he  tells  the  Ephesians  (Acts 
19:26)  that  their  idols  are  not  gods.  Aristides  (. Apol .  3.  3;  7.  4;  12.  6) 
contends  that  images  are  but  the  lifeless  work  of  man,  and  (12:7) 
mentions  those  (the  Egyptians)  who  worship  the  sheep,  goat,  calf, 
pig,  ape: 

et  alii  alausam;  et  nonnulli  corcodilum  et  ancipitrem  et  piscem  et  miluum 
et  vulturem  et  aquilam  et  corvum.  Alii  felem  adorant,  et  alii  piscem  Sib- 
butam,  alii  canem  kai  ton  lykon  kai  ton  pithekon,  alii  anguem  et  alii  aspidem 
et  alii  leonem  et  alii  allium  et  caepas  et  spinas,  et  alii  pantheram  et  cetera. 
.  .  .  .  Et  Aegyptii  ergo  non  intellexerunt  eos  qui  his  similes  sint  deos  non  esse, 
quibus  non  sit  potestas  sui  conservandi.  Et  si  inlirmiores  sunt  quam  ut  se 
servent,  quod  ad  cultores  suos  servandos  pertinet,  unde  potestas  eos  adiuvandi 
erit  ? 

Justin  {Apol.  9  and  24)  speaks  of  idol  and  animal  worship  among  the 
Greeks  ( ?)  in  much  the  same  way  as  the  K.P.  Tatian  {Orat.  ad  Gr. 
4.  2)  mentions  “gods  of  wood  and  stone,”  and  (9.  1)  “things  creeping 
on  the  earth  and  swimming  in  the  water,  and  fourfooted  things  on  the 
mountains”  receiving  divine  honor.  Athenagoras  {Sup pi.  4)  says 
“the  Christians  are  not  atheists  like  that  Diagoras  who  chopped  up  a 
wooden  statue  of  Hercules  to  boil  his  turnips.  He  believed  in  no  god 
at  all.”  He  mentions  (1.  1-2),  again,  “the  Egyptians  thinking  cats 
and  crocodiles,  serpents  and  asps  and  dogs  to  be  gods,”  and  (14.  2) 
says  it  is  laughable  the  way  “the  Egyptians  set  up  these  gods  in  their 
temples  with  pomp  and  ceremony  and  incense  them;  and  think  beasts 
are  gods,  and  bury  them  in  temples  when  they  die.”  He  uses  almost 
the  words  of  K.P.  (15.  1):  “We  do  not  worship  stones  and  wood  and 
gold  and  silver,  thinking  them  gods.”  The  Letter  to  Diagnetus  appar- 


THE  PREACHING’S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


25 


ently  uses  the  K.P.  in  its  polemic  against  idols  (ii.  2-3;  iv.  2-3). 
Origen  (c.  Cels.  iii.  19)  alludes  to  Egyptian  animal  worship. 

That  God  gave  man  all  these  things  for  his  use  is  stated  frequently 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (cohort,  c.  8,  9) 
mentions  this  in  his  polemic  against  idolatry.  Porphyrius  says  it  was 
the  opinion  of  Chrysippus  that  Zeus  gave  to  men  animals  for  their  use 
and  for  sacrifice  to  the  gods,  especially  swine  (De  abst.  iii.  20;  Arium, 
S.V.F.,  II,  n.  1152).  Heb.  2:7  ff.,  quoting  Ps.  8:7  and  K.  15:27, 
similarly  represents  man’s  dominion  over  creatures,  which  God  subjected 
to  him.  The  Shepherd  of  Hernias  ( Mand .  xii.  4.  2)  has  nearly  the  same 
words  as  K.P.  in  this  passage. 

That  sins  committed  in  ignorance  are  pardonable  is  also  stated 
in  Ps.  24:7;  Acts  3:17;  Just.  Apol.  12.  11;  Shepherd ,  Mand .  iv.  1.  5. 
“The  perfect  knowledge,”  which  is  contrasted  with  ignorance  and 
imperfect  knowledge,  is  not  necessarily  (as  Dobschuetz  thinks,  p.  20) 
the  addition  of  Clement.  Similar  expressions  are  found  in  Rom.  2:20; 
I  Cor.  2:6;  8:1;  12:8;  13 : 11  ff. ;  14:20;  I  Pet.  3:7;  cf.  II  Cor.  3:14; 
8:7;  11:16;  Eph.  3:19;  I  Tim.  6:20;  Col.  2:2;  cf.  Justin,  Appendix, 
8.  3;  Tatian,  Oral,  ad  Gr.  12.  4. 

Frag.  IV.  The  Jewish  manner  of  worship  is  repudiated  in  this 
fragment  with  uncompromising  completeness.  It  is  difficult  to  find 
anything  else  exactly  like  this,  except  in  some  later  apologists,  apparently 
copying  the  K.P.  Paul  had  not  repudiated  Jewish  angelology,  nor  did 
he  object  to  the  Jews  observing  their  own  law.  Even  Justin  {Dial.  47) 
allowed,  “out  of  consideration  for  weak-mindedness,”  the  Jewish 
Christians  to  observe  their  law,  provided  they  did  not  try  to  force  its 
observance  on  gentile  Christians.  The  evangelists,  too,  are  quite  in 
sympathy  with  Jewish  angelology,  especially  Matthew,  who  is  else 
more  hostile  to  the  Jews  than  the  others.  What  we  have  in  K.P.  is 
really  the  genuine  Greek  philosopher’s  ridicule  of  Jewish  worship  of 
angels  and  month  and  moon  and  observance  of  days.  Jewish  apologists 
commonly  contend  that  the  accusation  of  angel  worship  brought  against 
“the  Jews”  was  due  to  confounding  “Jews”  with  “Ophites,”  and 
appeal  to  the  Talmud  (Mek.  Yithro  X)  where  R.  Ismael  says:  “He 
who  slaughters  an  animal  in  the  name  of  Michael,  the  great  captain  of 
the  heavenly  hosts,  renders  the  same  an  offering  to  dead  idols”  (cf. 
Hub  40  a;  Ab.  Zarah  42  b).  “Four  keys  are  in  the  keeping  of  God 
exclusively  and  not  in  that  of  the  angels:  the  keys  of  rain,  of  nourish¬ 
ment,  of  birth,  and  of  resurrection.”  Targ.  Yer.  to  Gen.  30:22  excludes 
prayer  of  petition  for  certain  things  to  angels  (cf.  Jewish  Encycl.,  I,  595). 


26 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


The  fact  that  Jewish  authorities  found  it  necessary  to  forbid  or  restrain 
angel  worship  is  worthy  of  note,  and  it  should  be  observed  that  the 
restraint  is  not  a  total  prohibition.  Sacrifice  to  angels  being  eliminated, 
there  may  yet  remain  more  than  one-half  of  i  per  cent  of  angel  worship. 
Josephus  {Bel.  Jud.  ii.  8.  7)  attributes  a  special  gift  of  interpreting  angel 
names  to  the  Essenes. 

Mention  has  already  been  made,  in  speaking  of  the  Jewish  “Law” 
and  of  “One  God,”  of  what  pagans  thought  of  the  Jews  in  this  regard. 
Not  all  the  heathen  admired  the  Law  of  Moses  or  tried  to  observe  the 
Sabbath.  Possibly  the  more  common  attitude  of  the  educated  Greeks 
and  Romans  was  that  which  regarded  the  Sabbath  observance  as  sheer 
nonsense  and  laziness,  as  did  Juvenal  {Sat.  xiv.  105  f.): 

Sed  pater  in  causa,  cui  septima  quaeque  fuit  lux 

Ignava,  et  partem  vitae  not  attigit  ullam. 

Apparently  sensible  pagans,  like  sensible  Jews  and  Christians,  objected 
only  to  an  exaggerated  scrupulousness  of  exerting  one’s  self  on  the 
Sabbath.  Bacon1  remarks  on  Mk.  2 : 27,  “Sabbath  is  made  for  man  and 
not  man  for  the  Sabbath,  ”  that  “  the  proverb  (quoted  also  in  the  Talmud) 
which  gives  a  constructive  ground  for  proper  disregard  of  the  Sabbath  is 
unauthentic.  It  fails  to  appear  in  either  synoptic  parallel  and  is  wanting 
in  the  B  text.”  Bacon  might  have  passed  a  more  lenient  judgment 
upon  this  passage  had  he  used  the  same  criterion  he  did  on  the  next 
page  in  discussing  Matthew’s  and  Luke’s  treatment  of  Mk.  10:9.  Mark 
portrays  Jesus’  attitude  toward  the  Sabbath  consistently  in  3:1-6. 
It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  Christian  evangelists  and  apologists  detect 
the  attitude  of  their  readers  toward  the  Sabbath,  to  which  they  success¬ 
fully  appeal.  The  Book  of  Jubilees  (1:14),  “They  will  go  astray  as  to 
new  moons  and  Sabbaths  and  festivals  and  jubilees  and  ordinances,” 
is  similar  in  tone  to  the  K.P.,  and  would  seem  to  be  a  protest  against 
exaggerated  formality  as  well  as  indifference.  Ill  Esdras  (7:14) 
describes  a  celebration  of  Azymes,  “eating  for  seven  days  before  the 
Lord,”  but  it  may  only  mean  to  emphasize  the  grandeur  of  the  feast, 
as  it  does  the  Passover  celebration  (1:1). 

There  is  a  contrast  between  the  words  (IV)  ginoskein  and  epistantai 
which  cannot  be  adequately  expressed  in  English.  The  former  here 
seems  to  mean  that  the  Jews  rest  quietly  content  in  the  notion  that  they 
are  God’s  people,  but  have  not  personally  investigated  the  reasons 
for  such  belief,  in  the  way  Greek  philosophers  said  life  was  too  short  to 

1  B.  W.  Bacon,  Is  Mark  a  Roman  Gospel?  (1919),  p.  70,  n.  3. 


THE  PREACHING'S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


27 


make  sure  about  the  gods,  and  it  was  advisable  to  take  religion  as  we 
find  it,  avoiding  atheism  on  the  one  hand  and  superstition  on  the  other. 
“The  Jews”  are  designated  in  much  the  same  way  as  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  (3:21-24;  7:15  ff.;  8:17,  where  “your  law”  is  spoken  of  as  if 
Jesus  were  not  a  Jew;  cf.  10:34  and  contrast  “ethnos”  in  11:51). 
Apoc.  2:9  may  refer  to  the  Roman,  or  Catholic,  Christians,  to  whom 
Hebrews  was  written,  and  who  produced  the  irenic  literature  of  Domi- 
tian’s  reign  (cf.  3:9).  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  visionary  John  of 
Ephesus  should  discountenance  such  an  attitude  toward  “Babylon” 
(17:5;  18:2)  as  was  taken  by  the  Roman  Catholic  church,  or  the 
Christian  communities  from  which  emanated  I  Peter.  These  Petrine 
writings  will  be  compared  below. 

Philo  says  a  great  deal  about  angels  and  archangels,  but  nowhere 
says  they  are  worshiped.  Still  his  emphatic  insistence  on  the  worship 
of  one  God  is  significant,  and  he  would  seem  to  give  the  Therapeutae 
(or  Essenes)  credit  for  a  monotheism  of  more  than  common  purity. 
Doubtless  it  was  Chaldean  influence  that  was  filling  the  heavens  of  that 
time  with  angelic  hosts.  Philo  thought  the  belief  was  too  common 
to  oppose,  and  perhaps  beneficial,  as  a  wholesome  return  to  spirituality 
after  the  bleak  winter  of  Epicurean  materialism.  (Compare  the  revival 
of  belief  in  ghosts  in  our  own  time.)  Would  Philo’s  silence  indicate  a 
diversity  of  practice  and  creed  among  the  Jews  ?  Anyhow,  there  was 
not  a  great  deal  of  real  difference  between  the  astrological  gnosticism  of 
the  Alexandrine  writers  and  the  Chaldean  angelology  of  Palestinian 
apocalyptic  and  rabbinical  literature.  The  part  angels  were  said  to 
play  in  the  physical,  the  moral,  and  the  religious  world  is  quite  well 
depicted  in  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  (Reuben  2:7; 
Levi  2 : 34  ff.) ,  where  the  “heavens”  and  “their  angels”  are  described. 
In  the  highest  heaven  is  God  (34);  in  the  next  the  archangels  (35); 
then  the  angels  (37);  after  that  the  thrones  and  dominations  (38) 
(cf.  Rom.  8:38;  Col.  1:16;  Eph.  1:21).  Perhaps  such  are  the  “Judaic 
myths,  foolish  questions,  and  genealogies”  and  “the  religion  of  angels” 
mentioned  in  Titus  1:14;  3:9  and  Col.  2:18.  The  attitude  of  Hebrews 
toward  the  angels  is  more  favorable  (1:4,  6,  7,  13,  14;  2:2,  5,  7,  9,  12; 
12:22;  13:2),  and  the  Apocalypse  of  John  is  thoroughly  Jewish  in  this 
regard  (3:5;  4:4,  etc.).  The  Gospels  quite  well  accord  in  their  attitude 
toward  angels.  Mark  is  too  much  concerned  with  demonology  to  accuse 
the  Jews  of  worshiping  angels,  of  whom  he  speaks  reverently  (8:38; 
13:32),  but  sometimes  speaks  of  “a  young  man”  (16:5,  neaniscan), 
as  does  the  Gospel  of  Peter  (10 : 39),  where  others  talk  of  angels.  Matthew 


28 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


makes  much  of  them  (i : 20;  2:13;  2:19;  22:30;  24:36;  25:31;  28:2; 
18:10,  where,  it  is  interesting  to  observe,  he  uses  the  same  language  as 
Philo,  De  opif.  mundi  69,  in  speaking  of  the  highest  of  the  angels,  with 
bodies  of  purest  “hyle,”  who  are  ever  with  God,  and  “behold  the  face 
of  the  Father.”  The  word  prosopon,  “person,”  later  became  prominent 
in  the  trinitarian  controversy).  Luke  frequently  introduces  angels 
(1 : 11  ff.,  36  ff.;  2:i3ff.,  4:10,  7:27  ff.;  12:8;  15:10;  11:22;  20:36; 
22:43;  Acts  5:19;  6:155*7:53;  8:26;  10:3;  12:7  f¥.) *  John  has  not 
so  much  to  say  about  them  (5:4;  19:12).  Aristides  (Apol.  14.  4)  is 
quite  plainly  using  the  K.P.:  “(Judaei)  quoque  a  scientia  exacta  aber- 
raverunt  et  se  Deo  servire  in  mente  arbitrantur,  nationibus  vero  operum 
eorum  cultus  angelorum  et  non  Dei  est.”  The  other  apologists  have 
nothing  to  say  about  the  Jews  worshiping  angels,  except  Origen  in  answer 
to  the  accusation  brought  by  Celsus  (i.  26;  v.  6-34),  in  about  the  same 
way  as  the  K.P.  and  Aristides.  Athenagoras  rather  turns  the  accusation 
against  the  Greeks,  and  says  their  heroes  are  but  fallen  angels  (Sup pi. 
24  f.),  and  that  these  heroes  were  later  made  to  be  gods,  and  the  idols 
and  mysteries  of  Greece  and  Egypt  were  invented  in  their  honor  (27  f.). 
Philo  has  a  similar  view,  expressed  in  many  places.  It  has  already 
been  mentioned  that  Justin  says  “the  angel”  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  Jesus,  whom  he  also  calls  (Apol.  12.  9;  63.  14,  etc.,  cf.  Heb.  3:1) 
“our  Angel  and  Apostle.” 

The  Sabbath  and  other  feasts  mentioned  here  occur  frequently 
in  Jewish  and  early  Christian  literature  Philo  (De  septen.  1.  2,  Bent- 
wich,  p.  1 21)  enumerates  ten  feasts  observed  by  the  Alexandrine  Jews: 
(1)  every  day,  if  used  aright;  (2)  the  Sabbath;  (3)  New  Moon;  (4) 
Passover;  (5)  First  Fruit  (Omer) ;  (6)  Unleavened  Bread;  (7)  Pentecost; 
(8)  New  Year;  (9)  Atonement,  the  Great  Day;  (10)  Tabernacles. 
Aristides  (Apol.  14.  4),  continuing  the  passage  quoted  above,  says: 
“  (Judaei)  cum  sabbata  custodiant  et  neomenias  et  azyma1  et  ieiunium 
(diem)  magnum  et  ieunium  et  circumcisionem  et  escarum  munditian, 
quae  ne  ita  quidem  perfecte  custodierunt.”  The  Letter  to  Diagnetus 
(4.  1)  speaks  of  the  Jews’  Sabbath  superstition  and  circumcision  and 
the  fast  and  new  moon.  The  striking  agreement  and  discrepancy 

1  Cf.  Zahn,  G.N.T.K. ,  II,  2,  p.  823,  and  Theol.  Literatur  Z.  (1892),  p.  38.  Mk. 
14:1;  I  Cor.  5:7  (Peschitto).  Hilgenfeld  would  read  hemeran  for  nesteian,  making 
Aristides  14.  4  agree  with  K.P.  IV,  but  cf.  Justin  Apol.  37.  5  and  Ep.  ad  Diag.  iv.  1: 
and  Ev.  Pet.  11 : 5;  14: 58  (cf.  Dobschuetz,  p.  37,  n.  2;  Schiirer,  I,  239,  A  22).  Azyma 
here  would  seem  to  mean  the  entire  Paschal  week,  Nisan  14-21  (cf.  Acts  20:6); 
Heorten  is  probably  “Pentecost,”  and  Megalen  hemeran  “the  Great  Day  of  Atone¬ 
ment.”  Note  a  similar  confusion  in  Mk.  14: 1 ;  Mt.  26:2;  L.  22:1. 


THE  PREACHING’S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


29 


between  the  K.P.  and  Aristides  and  the  Diagnetus  letter  might  be  due 
to  independent  use  of  the  K.P.  by  all  three  writers,  Clement,  Aristides, 
and  the  writer  to  Diagnetus.  Both  Aristides  and  the  Diagnetus  writer 
mention  fasting,  which  does  not  occur  in  the  Clementine  K.P.  fragment, 
though,  as  will  be  seen  in  chapter  iv,  there  are  extant  probable  fragments 
of  the  K.P.  which  make  such  mention.  C.  Schmidt’s  remark  on  a 
similar  passage  in  the  Gespraeche  Jesu  would  agree  with  this  hypothesis.1 

The  expression  “Sabbath  which  is  called  First”  apparently  means 
“the  Great  Sabbath”  (cf.  Jo.  19:31;  and  Mart.  Polyc.  8.  1),  the  Sabbath 
after  the  Pasch.  See  Dobschuetz’  comment  on  this  passage  (p.  43). 
It  can  hardly  mean  “the  first  day  of  the  week”  (cf.  Mk.  16:2,  9;  Mt. 
28:1,  Acts  20:7,  I  Cor.  16:2)  for,  so  far  as  is  known,  the  first  day  of  the 
week  was  not  a  Jewish  feast,  though  it  has  been  observed  by  Christians 
from  the  first  century  as  “the  Lord’s  day.”  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas 
(XVI)  treats  of  the  transition  from  the  Jewish  Sabbath  to  the  Christian, 
mentioning  these  Jewish  feasts  of  New  Moon  and  Sabbath,  and  with 
his  characteristic  allegory  maintaining  that  Christians  have  begun  a 
new  week,  or  the  eighth  day. 

Frag.  V.  How  soon  it  became  evident  that  Christians  were  “a  new 
race”  is  not  easy  to  determine.  It  would  seem  that  even  before  Christ 
some  Jews  had  begun  to  realize,  as  Trypho  was  forced  to  acknowledge  in 
his  (perhaps  fictitious)  dialogue  with  Justin  (chap.  47),  that  it  was 
practically  impossible  to  observe  the  Mosaic  Law  as  it  was  interpreted 
by  the  Pharisees,  and  hence  sought  some  reasonable  substitute.  The 
Alexandrine  Jews  apparently  found  such  a  substitute  in  the  allegorical 
spiritualization  of  Judaism,  and  there  were  doubtless  several  such 
religious  movements  as  are  represented  by  the  Essenes  and  Therapeutae. 
John  the  Baptist,  of  whom  we  regrettably  know  so  little,  was  apparently 
a  leader  of  such  a  movement,  and  men  like  Apollo  (I  Cor.  1:12;  Acts 
18:24)  were  perhaps  active  “apostles”  of  the  “new”  movement  before 
Christian  evangelists  appeared  on  the  scene.  What  is  said  (Acts, 
chap.  18)  about  “Aquila,  a  certain  Jew  of  Pontus,  and  Priscilla,  his 
wife,”  expelled  from  Rome  by  Claudius,  meeting  Paul  at  Corinth  and 
working  with  Apollo  at  Ephesus,  is  interesting.  The  strange  confusion 
of  the  name  Simon  and  the  reference  to  Kephas  (I  Cor.  1:12,  etc.)  have 
never  been  satisfactorily  explained.  There  is  also  something  in  the 
difficulty  experienced  in  determining  whether  such  literature  as  the 
Apocalypse  and  the  Didache  are  Christian  or  Jewish.  We  are  not 
certain  about  the  Sibyl  III  and  IV,  and  there  is  even  reason  to  doubt 

1  C.  Schmidt,  op.  cit.,  p.  583. 


30 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


about  Philo  and  Josephus.  Nor  is  the  difficulty  limited  to  distinction 
between  Jews  and  Christians.  It  is  an  amusing  phenomenon,  often 
repeated,  that  leading  archaeologists  contend  for  the  same  inscription 
or  monument,  respectively  claiming  it  to  be  Jewish,  Christian,  Mithraic, 
Hermetic,  Apollonian,  etc.  The  Marcus  Aurelius  column,  the  Aberkios 
inscription,  the  Hermas  Good  Shepherd,  the  Mithra  caenacula  are 
instances.  Nor  is  this  contention  anything  modern.  Justin  claimed 
(Append,  io.  i)  that  whatever  was  said  that  was  true  is  ours,  and  says 
(Append.  13)  he  is  a  Christian  “not  because  the  teachings  of  Plato  are 
different  from  those  of  Christianity,  but  because  they  are  not  in  all 
respects  the  same.”  He  accused  the  Mithra  mystics  of  imitating 
Christians  ( Apol .  66.  4),  and  the  pagans  generally  of  borrowing  from 
Christianity.  It  was  considered  honorable  to  be  of  ancient  descent. 
A  “novus  homo”  was  at  least  to  be  suspected.  The  claim  to  be  “new” 
was  a  new  claim  indeed.  The  K.P.  not  only  claimed  for  Christianity 
the  reality  of  the  new  covenant  promised  by  the  prophets  (Jer.  31:31; 
cf.  11:19);  it  proclaimed  the  Christians  “a  new,  a  third  race,”  and 
declared  the  dispensation  of  the  Jews  and  Greeks  “antiquated.” 

The  pagans  recognized  the  novelty  of  Christianity  (Tacitus  Ann. 
15.  44;  Suetonius  Vita  Nero  16),  and  it  was  a  recommendation,  for  the 
old  order  of  things  was  no  longer  desired  by  many.  “Philosophy 
declared,”  says  Zeller,1  “that  all  men  are  of  one  blood  and  equally 
privileged  citizens  of  one  empire,  that  morality  rests  on  the  relation  of 
man  to  man,  and  is  independent  of  nationality  and  position  in  the  state; 
but  in  so  doing  it  only  explicitly  stated  a  truth  which  was  partly  realized 
and  partly  implied  in  actual  life.”  Various  attempts  were  being  made 
to  realize  the  philosopher’s  and  the  poet’s  dream,  which  often  proved 
but  vain  experiments  or,  like  that  which  Ploteinos  was  planning  when 
he  died,  never  materialized.  The  “Golden  Age”  was  longed  for,  hoped 
for,  believed  to  be  obtainable  in  a  future  life,  and  the  first  generation 
of  Christians  ardently  shared  that  hope  and  faith.  But  as  the  old 
generation  died  off,  and  the  new  grew  up,  this-worldly  views  began  to 
take  form.  The  millennial  hope,  an  outgrowth  of  Jewish  apocalyptic 
and  heathen  mysticism,  looked  for  at  least  “a  thousand  years”  of  fabu¬ 
lous  happiness  here  on  earth.  Others  held  to  the  older  belief  in  an 
other-worldly  kingdom,  but  set  it  at  a  greater,  even  an  indefinite, 
distance,  and  began  soberly  to  attend  to  the  affairs  of  the  present 
life.  This  attitude  is  manifest  in  the  Catholic  literature  of  the  late 
first  century,  and  seems  to  be  that  of  the  K.P.  Already  discernible 
is  the  conservatism  and  retrospection  of  authority  basing  its  claim 

1  Zeller,  The  Stoics,  Epicureans,  and  Skeptics,  chap.  ii. 


THE  PREACHING'S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


31 


upon  the  past — the  Roman  “titulus  praescriptions.”  “What  you 
have  learned,”  “what  we  have  given,”  as  tradition,  keep  faithfully — 
is  the  tone  of  the  Preaching  of  Peter.  The  very  name  is  note¬ 
worthy.  Then  there  is  appeal  to  Scripture.  But  it  is  the  gentile 
view  of  Scripture,  the  common  property  of  all  men  not  as  the  exclu¬ 
sive  possession  of  the  Jews,  for  the  Jews  are  a  thing  of  the  past; 
and  indeed,  were  never  really  more  the  object  of  God’s  providence 
than  were  the  Greeks.  Some  of  the  Jews  themselves,  at  least  of 
the  Hellenistic  world,  had  begun  to  recognize  this.  The  Sibyl  (V, 
247  f.)  speaks  of  the  “divine  race  of  blessed  Jews.”  Philo’s  Therapeutae 
are  nothing  else,  says  Friedlaender  ( Gesch .  der  jued.  Apol.,  p.  263), 
than  the  “geistige  Elite  des  Diaspora-Judenthums,”  and  Philo  ( De 
Abrah.  ii.  15)  says  “they  are  the  beloved  of  God  of  all  nations,  a 
race  that  has  obtained  the  priesthood  and  the  prophetic  office  for  the 
whole  race  of  men”  (cf.  I  Pet.  2:9).  “This  especially  is  desired,” 
says  Philo  (De  human,  ii.  395)  in  refutation  of  the  charge  of  misanthropy 
brought  against  the  Jews,  “  throughout  the  law  by  the  most  holy  Prophet, 
to  prepare  equality,  community,  concord  among  all  nations,  by  which 
things  states  and  cities,  peoples  and  countries,  and  the  whole  human 
race,  may  rise  to  the  highest  benevolence.  This  has  ever  been  my 
prayer,  and  I  believe  it  will  yet  come  about.”  This  hope  of  Philo’s  is 
what  the  K.P.  claims  is  realized  in  Christianity.  Dobschuetz  (p.  45) 
says  the  terminology  is  Pauline.  It  seems  rather  commonplace.  The 
thought  is  quite  an  advance  over  Paul’s.  Compare  Rom.  1:14-17; 
3:21  f.;  7:6;  9:24k;  10:4,12;  11:1,17;  15:9  ff . ;  I  Cor.  7:29;  Gal. 
3:9,  22,  28  f.;  Col.  2:10-11.  Paul  is  still  thinking  in  terms  of  “Jew 
and  Gentile.”  Even  though  he  conceives  a  union  of  the  two,  it  is  the 
adoption  of  the  Gentile  into  the  Jewish  inheritance,  the  grafting  of  the 
“wild  olive”  on  to  the  old  trunk.  Paul’s  is  the  Apocalypse  vision  of  the 
vast  multitude  of  races  gathered  with  the  hundred  and  forty-four  thou¬ 
sand  of  Israel  into  a  new  Jerusalem  which  is  built  upon  the  twelve  tribes 
(Apoc.  4: 1-10;  17:2;  21:10-15;  22:15).  He  speaks  glowingly  indeed 
of  “the  new  creation”  (II  Cor.  5:17;  Gal.  6:15),  but  it  is  “service  in 
newness  of  spirit,  not  in  antiqueness  of  letter.”  It  is  not  the  “Third 
Race”  of  the  K.P.,  nor  hardly  the  “elect  race,  the  royal  priesthood,  the 
holy  nation,  a  people  of  purchase,”  of  I  Peter  (2:9).  Paul  can  never 
grant  that  “Israel  is  cast  off.”  He  cannot  say,  “If  the  old  had  been 
blameless,  a  new  would  not  have  been  sought  ....  that  the  former 
has  grown  old,  is  antiquated,  is  soon  to  disappear”  (Heb.  8:8-13),  and 
that  therefore  we  have  “a  New  Covenant.” 


32 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


The  Gospels,  especially  the  Fourth,  and  Acts,  contain  traces  of  the 
old  view  of  two  races,  the  gentile  Christians  being  little  better  than 
Jewish  proselytes,  together  with  the  “new”  (Mk.  1:27;  13:9-11; 

Mt.  5:17;  21:28-32;  Acts  11:26;  Jo.  4:21-27;  8:17;  10:34;  11:50, 
where  “ethne”  would  seem  from  the  context  to  mean  the  Jewish  nation). 
The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (5:7)  speaks  of  “the  new  people”;  Aristides 
{Apol.  2.  1 ;  Syr.  2.  9),  doubtless  originally  agreed  with  the  K.P.,  dividing 
the  world  into  “  three  races,  ”  heathen,  Jews,  and  Christians  (cf.  Geffcken, 
Zwei  gr.  Ap.,  .notes  on  these  passages,  and  Einl.  xii-xxxii;  also  in 
Preussische  Jahrbuecher  [1903],  pp.  225  ff.),  and  calls  them  ( Apol .  16.  4), 
“gens  vero  nova  et  mixtio  divina”;  and  (17.  5)  “benedicta  vero  est 
gens  Christianorum.”  The  Letter  to  Diagnetus  (1)  mentions  “this 
new  race,  ”  and  (5-6)  draws  a  fascinating  picture  of  Christian  life, 
“what  the  soul  is  to  the  body,  Christians  are  to  the  world.”  Justin 
{Dial.  43.1;  85.2;  106.  1 ;  117.  4;  118.3;  122.5;  123.  1;  Apol.  14.  1; 
32.  5;  44.  8;  46.  3;  53.  3;  54.  3;  59.  1;  61.9;  Append.  10.  8)  contrasts 
the  “old”  with  the  “new”  dispensation,  and  declares  that  Christianity 
is  really  nothing  new,  but  that  whatever  is  said  well  by  all  peoples  is 
Christian  (Append.  13.  4;  Dial.  63.  5;  105.  1;  116.  1:  118.  2;  126-29). 
Athenagoras  {Sup pi.  32  et  passim)  speaks  of  Christians  in  much  the  same 
way  as  the  Letter  to  Diagnetus. 

Frags.  VI  and  VIII.  These  two  fragments  agree  in  promising  forgive¬ 
ness  of  sins  to  the  repentant.  In  Frag.  VI  the  promise  is  addressed  to 
the  Jews,  in  Frag.  VIII  to  “all  rational  souls,”  probably  including 
“the  spirits  in  prison,”  as  has  already  been  mentioned,  and  will  be 
discussed  more  fully  below  (cf.  I  Pet.  3:19;  Ev.  Pet.  [X]  41). 
Dobschuetz’  comment  (p.  24):  “Die  Beziehung  auf  das  Kerygma  im 
Hades  ist  wohl  von  Clem.  Al.  an  das  Citat  herangetragen,  ”  is  utterly 
unwarranted.  The  conditions  for  obtaining  forgiveness  of  sins  are  the 
same  for  Jew  and  Greek,  faith  and  repentance.  It  is  noteworthy  that 
no  mention  is  made  of  baptism,  and  the  completely  developed  expression 
of  the  Trinity,  found  in  Mt.  28:19,  is  as  yet  apparently  unthought  of. 
Faith  and  repentance  are  free  acts,  “  if  anyone  will,”  only  he  is  responsible 
for  his  choice;  the  part  of  the  apostle  is  to  preach,  so  that  none  may  have 
excuse  to  say,  “We  did  not  hear”;  having  heard,  it  rests  with  him 
freely  to  choose  to  believe  and  repent  or  not,  and  the  consequence  is, 
accordingly,  salvation  or  damnation. 

Forgiveness  of  sin  upon  repentance  is  spoken  of  in  the  Prayer  of 
Manasses,  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (11:24;  12:10-20;  15:2);  Jesu  Sirach 
(3:4);  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  (Issachar,  7:1,  where  it 


THE  PREACHINGS  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


33 


is  interesting  to  note  the  “ negative  confession”;  compare  Arist.  Apol. 
17.  4);  Mark  (1:15  f.;  2:5,  7;  6:12);  Matthew  (9:2;  9:13;  11:20; 
12:1  f . ;  18:11-13;  21:31-32;  28:18-20);  Luke  (5:20,  32,  7:47  f.; 

i3:35  15 : 7;  17:3;  24:47  k);  Acts  (1:4;  2:38;  3:19;  5:31;  7:30; 
11:18;  17:30;  26:20);  John  (9:27;  20:23);  Apocalypse  (2:5,  21; 
3:3);  I  Peter  (1:21);  Hebrews  (6:1).  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (5:9; 
8:3  and  7;  11 : 1)  is  very  like  the  K.P.  So  also  is  th  e  Shepherd  of  Hernias 
{ Mand .  iv.  1.  5;  Sim.  v.  7.  3,  ix.  17.  1-2).  The  Acts  of  John  (Zahn, 
pp.  241  f.),  of  Thomas  (38:55  f.),  Altercatio  Simonis  Judae  et  Theophili 
Christiani  (viii.  36)  bear  striking  resemblance  to  K.P.  Aristides  {Apol. 
17.  3-4,  Syr.,  cf.  Rob.,  p.  89): 

Qua  de  causa,  cum  errorem  illorum  intelligant  et  ab  illis  verberentur, 
tolerant  et  patiuntur,  et  illorum  valde  miserantur  quasi  hominum  qui  scientiae 
inopes  sunt  et  pro  illis  supplicationes  offerunt  ut  ab  errore  convertant.  Et 
cum  accidit  ut  aliquis  illorum  converterit,  coram  Christianis  eum  pudet 
gestorum  quae  ab  eo  facta  sunt,  et  Deum  laudat,  dicens  Per  ignorantiam  haec 
feci.  Et  purgat  cor  suum  et  peccata  eius  ei  dimittuntur,  quod  per  ignorantium 
tempore  priore  ea  fecit. 

Compare  Justin  {Apol.  15.  7-8;  28.  2;  40.  7;  52.  9;  61.  6-12,  where 
he  speaks  in  language  similar  to  K.P.,  adding,  “Thus  far  we  have  been 
taught  by  the  Apostles”;  no  mention  of  baptism). 

There  seems  to  be  a  lacuna  in  VI.  Probably  the  original  reading  was 
something  like  Acts  1 : 4 ,  instructing  the  apostles  to  remain  in  Jerusalem 
twelve  years,  preaching  the  gospel  of  faith  and  repentance  to  the  Twelve 
Tribes  of  Israel;  and  then  continuing,  “and  after  twelve  years,  go  out 
into  the  world.”  The  tradition  of  this  twelve  years  of  waiting  is  men¬ 
tioned  by  Eusebius,  quoting  Apollonius,  Acts  of  Peter  (c.  Sim.  c.  5)  and 
frequently  in  second -century  literature,  especially  that  emanating  from 
the  “Petrine  Tradition,”  of  which  more  will  be  said  below.  The  tradi¬ 
tion  doubtless  grew  out  of  the  Christians’  attempt  to  answer  the  question 
put  to  them  by  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion,  “If  the  Gospel  is  for  Jews, 
why  is  it  preached  to  Gentiles?”  as  well  as  the  question  put  by  the 
Gentiles,  “Why  did  the  Jews  reject  the  Gospel?”  While  it  is  not 
necessary  to  conclude  that  the  porosis ,  or  hardening  of  heart,  was 
connected  from  the  beginning  with  the  tradition  of  the  twelve  years’ 
wait  in  Jerusalem,  there  is  good  reason  to  think  it  was.  See  Bacon 
{Is  Mark  a  Roman  Gospel?  pp.  72  f.),  citing  Mk.  4: 13,  40;  6:52;  7:18; 
8:16-19;  9:18-19,  28,  32;  10:13-14  and  24,  26,  32;  14:50.  This 

agrees  very  well  with  Paul’s  attitude  toward  the  Jews  who  rejected  his 
gospel,  even  though  he  did  not  believe  “God  had  cast  off  His  people” 


34 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


(Rom.  10:20  f.;  Acts  28:25  f.).  “The  veil  is  over  their  heart”  (II 
Cor.  3:15),  he  says,  but  he  hopes  it  will  be  lifted.  Carl  Schmidt  {op. 
cit.,  p.  79)  says  of  this  passage: 

Dieses  Gebot  stand  nach  der  Angabe  des  Clemens  Al.  Strom,  vi.  5.  43,  als 
ein  authentisches  Herrenwort  in  dem  Kerygma  Petri,  und  es  kann  nicht 
zweifelhaft  sein,  dass  aus  der  gleichen  Quelle  der  kleinasiat  Apollonius  in 
seiner  Streitschrift  gegen  den  Montenismus  die  paradosia  von  dem  zwoelf- 
jaehrigen  Aufenthalt  der  Juenger  in  Jerusalem  nach  der  Auferstehung  des 
Herrn  geschaepft  hat. 

And  (p.  192): 

Sehr  geschickt  hat  der  Verfasser  des  Kerygma  Petri  sich  dem  Dilemma: 
Weltmission  oder  Judenmission  durch  die  Annahme  entzogen,  dass  die  Urapostel 
sich  zwoelf  Jahre  hindurch  auf  Geheiss  des  Herrn  auf  die  Mission  der  Juden 
beschraenkt  und  dennach  erste  ihre  Weltmission  angetreten  haben,  eine 
Ansicht,  die  auch  von  Tertullian  {De  praescr.  haeret.  c.  20)  geteilt  wird: 
“apostoli  primo  per  Judaeam  contestata  fide  in  Jesum  Christum  et  ecclesiis 
institutis,  dehinc  in  orbem  profecti  eandem  doctrinam  eiusdem  fidei  nationibus 
promulgaverunt.  Von  der  Judenmission  hat  der  Verfasser  des  Kerygma 
scheinvar  keine  hohe  Meinung  gehabt,  wenn  er  den  Herrn  sagen  laesst  [follows 
Frag.  VI.  Cf.  pp.  202,  203,  n.  4]. 

He  renders,  Gespraeche  Jesu  (c.  25,  Coptic):  “Gehet  ihr  und  prediget 
den  zwoelf  Staemmen  {phyle)  und  prediget  auch  den  Heiden  ( ethnos )  ” 
(cf.  c.  31,  Coptic).  See  also  Dobschuetz  (p.  53)  and  Zahn  ( G.N.T.K. , 
II,  2,  p.  821,  and  Act.  Joh.  Proch.,  pp.  3  ff.),  Pistis  Sophia  (Dob.,  p.  153), 
and  the  Bruce  Papyrus,  which  speak  of  eleven  years’  wait  in  Jerusalem. 
Various  Gnostic  and  mystic  writings  speak  of  the  apparitions  of  the 
risen  Savior  for  months,  conversing  with  his  disciples  (cf.  L.  24:49; 
Acts  1:3;  Jo.  20: 19-21,  25;  L.  24:13  ff.;  Mk.  16:9  ff.;  Mt.,  chap.  28; 
Ev.  Pet.  10:41,  etc.).  Aristides  {Apol.  15,  2  Syr.)  seems  to  imply  a 
certain  stay  of  the  apostles  in  Jerusalem  after  the  Resurrection:  “  Deinde 
hi  duodecim  ierunt”  (cf.  Justin  Apol.  53.  3). 

Frag.  VII.  The  word  “apostle”  in  Greek  meant  a  delegate  sent  with 
proper  authority.  Christ  is  called  “the  apostle  of  the  faith  which  we 
profess”  (Heb.  3:1,  cf.  Justin  Apol.  12.  9;  63.  14).  The  authorized 
collectors  of  the  annual  half-shekel  offering  for  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem 
were  called  apostles  (cf.  Jewish  Encycl .,  art.  “Apostle”).  In  the  early 
church  preachers  were  called  apostles,  to  distinguish  them  from  teachers 
and  prophets  (cf.  I  Cor.  12:29;  Didache  11:3).  “Disciple”  was  the 
common  designation  of  the  followers  of  a  teacher  (e.g.,  Mk.  2:18).  Paul 


THE  PREACHING'S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


35 


speaks  of  “those  who  were  before  him  Apostles”  (Rom.  16:7;  Gal. 
1:17)  and  hames  certain  ones,  mentions  the  apparition  of  Jesus  “to 
all  the  apostles”  (I  Cor.  14:7),  but  he  nowhere  says  there  were  twelve. 
The  Apocalypse  is  fond  of  connecting  the  twelve  apostles  with  the 
Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel  (Apoc.  21:14).  Mark  mentions  the  call  and 
election  of  “the  twelve”  (Mk.  3:13-19)  and  mentions  “the  twelve” 
in  several  places  (4:10;  6:7;  9:35;  10:32;  n:n;  14:20),  but  does 
not  call  them  “apostles.”  Similarly  Luke  speaks  of  “the  twelve” 
(L.  9:12;  18:31;  22:4),  but  he  inserts  in  the  narrative  of  the  election 
(6:13-16),  “whom  he  called  also  apostles,”  and  calls  them  apostles 
elsewhere  (22:14),  and  promises  them  twelve  thrones  (22:30;  cf.  Mt. 
19:28;  Apoc.  3:21).  Matthew  (10:1-2)  says:  “Calling  together 

the  twelve  disciples,  he  gave  them  power . Now  the  names  of 

the  twelve  apostles  are  these.”  Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  “the  twelve 
disciples”  (11:1;  20:17),  or  simply  of  “the  disciples”  (16:13;  19:10; 
21:1,  6;  26:36;  28:7,  16).  John  speaks  frequently  of  “the  disciples” 
(2:2,  11,  12;  6:3,  8,  17,  22,  24,  61;  9:2,  9,  28;  13:5,  23,  35),  of  “the 
twelve”  (6:71;  20:24),  of  “the  apostles”  (13:16),  but  seems  to  exclude 
Judas  from  the  election  (13:18).  In  Acts,  chapter  1,  “the  twelve 
apostles”  are  firmly  constituted  the  leaders  of  the  Jerusalem  community. 
Aristides  ( Apol .  15.  2)  has  “these  twelve  disciples.”  There  is  some 
discrepancy  in  the  names  of  the  twelve:  compare  the  lists  in  Mk. 
3:16-19;  Mt.  10:2-4;  Lk.  6:14-16;  Acts  1:13  (and  E.  Schmidt, 
Gespraeche  Jesu ,  p.  230).  “ Faithful  apostles”  sounds  like  the  Ebionite 

Gospel  (Klostermann,  Apos.,  II,  Ev.,  p.  10,  n.  26):  “Ich  waehle  je  die 
besten  mir  aus,  die  mir  mein  Vater  im  Himmel  gibt”  (cf.  Mt.  10:37; 
Ign  ad  Rom.  iii.  2).  The  Sibyl  (III,  69  ff.)  sings  of  “the  faithful  and 
chosen  Hebrews  ....  all  everywhere  who  have  listened  to  the  word 
of  God.”  Apocalypse  (2:2)  speaks  of  “some  who  call  themselves 
apostles,  and  are  not  such.”  The  Gospel  of  Peter  (14:59),  “We  twelve 
Apostles,”  etc.,  will  be  considered  below  with  the  other  Petrine  writings. 

Mark  (16:15  f.),  “Go  into  the  whole  world,”  etc.,  sounds  like  the 
K.P.  Also  Matthew  (28:18):  “Going  into  the  whole  world,  preach,” 
etc.,  and  Luke  (24:47).  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (5:9-10);  Aristides, 
as  quoted  above  (15.  2) ;  the  Shepherd  of  Hennas  ( Sim.  viii.  3.2;  ix.  6.  5) ; 
Justin  {Apol.  31.  7;  32.  8-9;  40.  7;  42.  4;  45.  5)  says,  in  nearly  the  same 
words  as  the  K.P.,  the  apostles  went  into  the  whole  world  and  preached. 
Of  course,  this  is  such  a  common  item  of  Christian  narrative  that  even 
identity  of  language  is  no  certain  indication  of  literary  dependence. 
But  the  recurrence  of  such  expressions  manifests  that  these  writers 


36 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


had  the  same  material  in  hand  and  sometimes  the  identity  is  so  close 
that  one  cannot  resist  the  inclination  to  attribute  the  sameness  to 
copying. 

The  “ faith”  here  required  for  salvation  is  quite  a  definite  thing 
and  seems  pretty  much  the  same  as  the  “ faith”  of  Rom.  3:21  f.;  3:28; 
10:9,  17  and  Jo.  6:47,  etc.:  “ He  that  believes  in  me”  (cf.  3 : 18;  5:24). 
“  What  is  to  come  to  pass”  occurs  also  in  several  places  in  Justin  ( Apol . 
39.  1;  44.  11,  etc.).  “That  they  may  have  no  excuse  to  say,  we  did  not 
hear,”  is  so  exactly  repeated  in  the  Acts  of  Thomas  (28)  and  Theophilus 
ad  Antolicum  (i.  14)  that  even  Dobschuetz  admits:  “Hier  sind  die  An- 
klaenge  so  gehaeuft,  dass  man  vielleicht  nicht  mit  unrecht  Abhaengigkeit 
von  dem  K.P.  annehmen  duerfte”  (p.  57).  See  also  Justin  (Apol.  42.  1) 
and  Jo.  15:22.  The  difficult  reading  in  Frag.  VII  may  be  explained 
by  John  (17:3):  “That  they  may  know  Thee,  the  only  true  God,”  and 
(17:20):  “Who  through  their  word  shall  believe  in  me.” 

Frag.  IX-X.  The  appeal  to  Scripture  was  common  among  the 
Jews  (cf.  the  sermons  of  Peter  and  Stephen  in  Acts  1:15  ff.;  2 :14  s.; 
3:12  ff.;  7:2  ff.).  And  at  this  time  it  was  just  as  common  among  the 
Gentiles.  Not  only  the  Sibyl ,  and  poets  like  Virgil,  but  even  such 
historians  as  Tacitus  and  Suetonius  take  cognizance  of  the  popularly 
supposed  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  The  care  with  which  the  evangelists 
and  apologists  point  out  the,  supernaturalness  of  the  events  they  narrate, 
their  anxiety  to  prove  Jesus  the  Messiah  promised  by  the  Prophets, 
may  have  been  enhanced  by  the  presence  of  the  John  the  Baptist  sect. 
But  it  also  manifests  that  the  Greeks  for  whom  they  wrote  were  not 
unfamiliar  with  the  Septuagint  Scriptures.  Justin’s  Dialogue  with  the 
Jew  is  intended  primarily  for  gentile  readers.  Celsus  shows  quite  as 
great  ease  in  handling  Jewish  Scriptures  as  do  the  Jews  and  Christians 
themselves.  Paul’s  assurance  that  Festus  “knew  all,  both  the  customs 
and  questions  among  the  Jews,”  was  probably  no  exaggeration.  The 
apologists  appeal  with  similar  confidence  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Roman 
rulers. 

From  this  appeal  to  Scripture,  the  appeal  to  apostolic  tradition 
was  an  easy  step.  It  is  even  foreshadowed  in  such  expressions  of  Paul 
as  he  uses  to  remind  the  Corinthians  (11:23)  that  what  he  had  taught 
them  about  the  Eucharist  was  not  his,  but  traditional  teaching.  Not 
only  Jewish,  but  gentile  converts  also,  brought  with  them  into  the 
Christian  community  a  predisposition  to  reverence  what  was  taught 
about  sacred  things,  especially  the  mysteries,  by  proper  authority. 
Apollonius  of  Tyana,  it  would  seem,  though  the  literature  is  rather 


THE  PREACHING'S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


37 


late  and  not  entirely  trustworthy,  claimed  to  be  the  fulfilment  of 
prophecies  made  by  Homer,  Hesiod,  Pindar,  Plato,  Virgil,  and  Horace. 
Paul,  in  his  sermon  to  the  Athenians  (Acts  17:22-31),  is  made  to  appeal 
to  Greek  authorities  in  support  of  his  gospel.  Plutarch  (On  Fate ,  n.  9) 
professes  his  belief  that  “the  Supreme  and  first  Providence  is  the  under¬ 
standing  or  (if  you  had  rather)  the  will  of  the  first  and  sovereign,  God, 
doing  good  to  everything  that  is  in  the  world,  by  which  all  divine  things 
have  universally  and  throughout  been  most  excellently  and  most  wisely 
ordained  and  disposed.”  Consoling  his  wife  on  the  death  of  their  little 
daughter,  he  reminds  her  (n.  n):  “In  the  laws  and  traditions  of  our 
ancestors,  when  children  die,  no  libations  nor  sacrifices  are  made  for  them, 
or  any  other  ceremonies  which  are  wont  to  be  proffered  for  the  dead.” 
It  was  principally  because  the  Stoics  and  Epicureans  denied  Providence, 
or  reduce  it  to  mechanical  physical  law,  that  men  like  Cicero,  Seneca, 
and  Plutarch  found  fault  with  them.  Virgil’s  Aeneid  is  a  poet’s  way  of 
portraying  fulfilled  prophecy,  as  his  Fourth  Eclogue  is  the  poet’s  restate¬ 
ment  of  prophecy  soon  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  dawn  of  the  Golden  Age. 

It  is  not  far,  therefore,  that  we  have  to  go  to  look  for  the  reason 
why  the  first  Christians  appealed  to  prophecy  to  prove  the  divinity  of 
their  Lord,  and  his  teaching  and  deeds.  It  was  but  natural  they  should 
put  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  such  appeal  to  Scripture  as  Jo.  5:39  and 
L.  4:16-30.  Similarly,  Gespraeche  Jesu  (Aeth.,  c.  31): 

Wie  auch  ihr  aus  der  Schrift  erfahren  habt  dass  eure  Vaeter  die  Propheten, 
von  mir  gesprochen  haben,  und  an  mir  ist  es  wirklich  erfuellt  worden.  Und 
er  sagte  uns:  so  werdet  auch  ihr  ihnen  zu  Wegbuehrem,  und  alles,  was  ich 
euch  sagte  und  ihr  wegen  mir  schriebet  (erzaehlet  ihnen  naemlich),  dass  ich 
das  Wort  bin  des  Vaters  und  der  Vater  in  mir  ist.  So  sollt  ihr  auch  jenem 
Manne  sein,  wie  es  euch  geziemt.  Belehret  und  erinnert  (ihn  an  das),  was  in 
der  Schrift  ueber  mich  gesprochen  und  erfuellt  worden  ist,  und  er  wird  nachher 
den  Voelkern  zum  Heil  [cf.  Strom,  vii.  17;  Tertul.  Praeser.  haeret.  32;  Schmidt, 
op.  cit .,  p.  192]. 

Luke  (24:25-26)  has  nearly  the  same,  where  Jesus,  appearing  to  the  two 
disciples  on  the  road  to  Emmaus,  chides  them  for  their  incredulity  and 
“slowness  of  heart  to  believe  in  all  the  things  the  Prophets  have  spoken 
of:  how  it  was  fitting  that  Christ  should  suffer  and  thus  enter  into  his 
glory;  and  beginning  with  Moses,  explained  to  them  in  all  the  Prophets 
and  all  the  Scriptures  what  concerned  him.”  I  Pet.  1 : 10  f.  throws 
light  upon  the  difficult  reading  of  Frag.  IX: 

Of  which  salvation  the  Prophets  have  inquired  and  diligently  searched, 
who  prophesied  of  the  grace  to  come  in  you;  searching  what  or  what  manner 


38 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  them  did  signify,  when  it  foretold  those  sufferings 
that  are  in  Christ  and  the  glories  that  should  follow,  to  whom  it  was  revealed 
that  not  to  themselves  but  to  you  they  ministered  those  things  which  are  now 
declared  to  you  by  them  that  have  preached  the  Gospel  to  you. 

To  quote  Carl  Schmidt  again  (p.  251):  “Christus  ist  somahl  Objekt 
wie  Subjekt  der  alttestamentlichen  Offenbarung.  Diese  dogmatische 
Theorie  der  Kirche  laesst  der  Verfasser  des  K.P.  durch  die  Apostel 
vertreten.”  (Follows  Frag.  IX.) 

The  writer  of  the  K.P.  represents  Peter,  in  the  same  attitude  as  does 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  “searching  the  Scriptures.”  Perhaps  the 
writer  himself  was  such  a  one  as  Apollo  is  depicted  to  be  (Acts  18:24), 
“powerful  in  the  Scriptures.”  Even  Mark,  who,  compared  with  the 
other  evangelists,  is  not  overanxious  to  quote  Scripture,  begins  his  Gospel 
with  a  reference  to  Isaiah  foretelling  John  the  Baptist,  and  records 
Jesus’  own  prophecy  of  his  passion  (10:33  f.).  Matthew’s  fondness 
for  observing  fulfilment  of  prophecy  is  notorious.  John  sometimes 
remarks  how  the  event  reminded  them  that  it  had  been  foretold  (Jo. 
2:17).  The  triple  division  of  prophecy  into  “parables,  enigmas,  and 
authentic  statement”  is  noteworthy.  “Parable”  occurs  frequently  in 
the  Gospels.  “Enigma”  (e.g.,  Mt.  6:4)  is  something  hidden,  hence 
not  easy  to  see  (I  Cor.  13:12).  Parables  were  sometimes  thus  obscure 
(4:34;  Mt.  13:35).  Justin  (Apol.  32:1)  says:  “Moses,  the  first  of  the 
Prophets,  spoke  autolexei  thus:  (Gen.  49:10).”  “Parousia,”  in  Frag. 
IX,  is  plainly  from  the  context  not  the  second  but  the  first  coming  of 
Christ,  his  manifestation  to  the  world.  What  follows  sounds  very 
much  like  the  Apostles’  Creed.  Indeed,  Robinson  (Harris,  “Aristides’ 
Apol.2,”  T.S. ,  I  [1893],  23  f.)  gives  what  he  considers  “the  Symbol  of  the 
Faith  in  the  time  of  Aristides,”  and  seems  to  think  (pp.  89  f.)  it  is 
foreshadowed  in  the  K.P.  Dobschuetz  disagrees  with  him  (p.  62): 
“Dass  in  unserem  Fragm.  noch  keine  Formel  vorliegt,  zeigt  eben  jenes 
kolaseis,  welches  fuer  den  Weissagungsbeweis  charakeristisch,  fuer  eine 
regula  fidei  ohne  Belang  war.”  There  are  snatches  of  phrases  which 
may  be  imagined  into  a  resemblance  of  the  creed  in  many  places  in  the 
early  apologists  and  even  in  the  canonical  New  Testament.  For 
instance  Acts  13:26-31,  where  there  is  mention  of  God,  of  Word,  whom 
the  Jews  besought  Pilate  to  kill;  “and  when  they  had  accomplished  all 
things  that  were  written  of  him,  taking  him  down  from  the  tree,  they 
laid  him  in  the  tomb.  But  God  raised  him  up  from  the  dead  on  the 
third  day.”  Romans  (10:10)  mentions  an  oral  profession  of  faith. 
Such  was  made  by  the  eunoch  before  Philip  baptized  him  (Acts  8:37). 


THE  PREACHING'S  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


39 


Timothy  (I  Tim.  6:12)  is  reminded  that  he  made  “a  good  profession 
before  many  witnesses.”  Hebrews  (10:23)  exhorts  the  (Roman?) 
Christians  to  hold  fast  an  unswerving  profession  of  our  hope,”  and  calls 
Jesus  the  “high  priest  and  apostle  of  our  profession.”  The  questions 
asked  the  catechumen  before  baptism  are  a  partitionment  of  the  creed, 
or  the  creed  is  a  union  of  those  questions.  But  our  earliest  certain 
evidence  of  the  creed’s  existence  is  Rufinus  (d.  410),  in  the  West,  who 
compares  the  Roman  baptismal  creed  with  that  of  Aquileia,  where  the 
creed  appears  in  practically  its  present  form.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
about  350  a.d.,  similarly  comments  on  the  baptismal  creed  in  use  at 
that  time  in  Jerusalem.  It  is  very  nearly  the  same  as  the  Roman. 
Tertulian,  about  200  a.d.,  in  three  places  (. De  praescr.  haer.  c.  13;  De 
virg.  vel.  c.  1.;  Ad  Prax.  c.  2)  outlines  the  faith  which  Africa,  he  says, 
received  from  the  Roman  church:  “Credendi  scl.  in  unicum  Deum 
omnipotentem,  mundi  conditorem,  et  Filium  ejus  Jesum  Christum, 
natum  ex  Virgine  Maria,  crucifixum  sub  Pontio  Pilato,  tertia  die  resuscit- 
atum  a  mortuis,  receptum  in  coelis,  sedentem  nunc  ad  dexteram  Patris, 
venturum  judicare  vivos  et  mortuos,  per  camis  etiam  resurrectionem  ” 
{De  virg.  vel.  1).  There  can  be  little  doubt  that,  if  this  is  the  creed 
the  Africans  got  from  the  Romans,  the  Roman  creed  was  very  nearly 
the  same  in  the  second  century  that  it  was  in  the  fourth  and  now. 
Tertullian  himself,  after  becoming  a  Montanist,  and  the  defender  of  the 
Paraclete,  adds  to  his  creed  {Adv.  Prax.  2):  “Qui  exinde  miserit 
secundum  promissionem  suam  a  Patre  spiritum  Sanctum  Paracletum, 
sanctificationem  fidei  eorum,  qui  credunt  in  Patrem  et  Felium  et  Spiritum 
Sanctum.”  It  cannot,  however,  be  safely  inferred  from  this  that  “the 
Holy  Ghost”  was  not  in  the  creed  before  Tertullian’s  time,  at  least 
not  in  the  creed  which  Irenaeus  of  Lyons  represents,  which  seems  to  be 
from  the  church  of  Smyrnae.  Irenaeus  gives  a  summary  of  faith  in 
three  places  {Adv.  haer.  i.  10.  1 ;  iii.  4.  2 ;  iv.  33.  7).  It  is  worthy  of  note, 
however,  that  {Adv.  haer.  iii.  4.  2)  where  he  claims  to  be  giving  the 
creed  of  the  Roman  church,  he  makes  no  mention  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  he  does  in  the  other  places.  Aristides  {Apol.  15.  2)  says:  “Hie 

Jesus  igitur  de  gente  Hebraeorum . Ipse  ab  Judaeis  crucifixus 

est,  et  mortuus  et  sepultus  est,  et  dicunt  post  tres  dies  eum  resurrexisse 
et  ad  caelos  ascendisse.”  The  Syriac  and  Armenian  versions  add  to 
chapter  2  (cf.  Goodspeed,  p.  4,  n.  6):  “Dictum  est  Deum  (eum  in 
spiritu  sancto  A.)  de  caelo  descendisse,  et  de  virgine  Hebraea  carnem 
cepisse.”  Justin  {Apol.  13.  3)  in  answer  to  the  charge  that  Christians 
are  atheists,  makes  a  profession  of  faith  “in  Jesus  Christ,  who  was 


40 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  in  the  time  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  governor 
of  Judaea,  (we)  having  been  taught  that  he  is  the  Son  of  the  true  God,” 
etc.  Similarly  in  2 1 .  i ;  31;  32;  35.6;  36.3;  50.  12,  etc.  The  sending 
of  the  apostles  into  the  world  is  much  like  the  K.P.  (49:4;  53:2.). 
Often  Justin  speaks  of  cures  effected  in  Jesus’  name  (e.g.,  48.  1)  and  of 
demons  expelled  {Dial.  85).  He  is  expressly  stating  the  fulfilment  of 
prophecy  (e.g.,  Apol.  37.  9;  51.  1;  Dial,  passim ),  and  the  reason  of  this 
is  clearly  seen  in  Apol.  53.  1.  After  a  long  list  of  quotations  from  the 
Prophets,  he  says: 

We  have,  therefore,  many  prophecies  (many  more  might  be  mentioned), 
but  I  stop  here,  judging  that  these  are  sufficient  to  convince  attentive  and 
intelligent  hearers,  supposing  they  will  be  able  to  understand  that  not  as  it 
is  said  in  the  myths  about  those  who  are  said  to  be  the  sons  of  Zeus  do  we  talk 
merely,  but  have  no  proof. 

He  appeals  to  instances  of  mythology,  familiar  to  the  Greeks,  of  appari¬ 
tions  of  the  dead  in  proof  of  Christ’s  resurrection  {Apol.  18-20).  And 
in  maintaining  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  (21)  he  reminds  his  readers 
that  Mercury  is  called  the  messenger  and  Logos  of  God;  Asklepios, 
the  physician,  ascended  to  heaven  on  a  thunderbolt;  Dionysus,  too, 
though  mangled,  rose  again  to  life  and  ascended  to  heaven;  Hercules, 
also,  ascended  from  the  flames;  Perseus  was  born  of  a  virgin,  and,  like 
Asklepios,  healed  the  sick;  and  so  many  other  so-called  sons  of  Zeus 
died  and  rose  again.  But  Christ  did  all  these  things  in  fulfilment  of 
prophecy.  He  tells  them  (24):  “You  pay  witnesses  to  swear  they  have 
seen  dead  Emperors  ascend  to  heaven  from  the  funeral-pyre.”  He  ridi¬ 
cules  their  worship  of  animals,  their  mysteries,  and  the  myths  of  the 
gods’  and  goddesses’  impurities  (25).  He  mentions  (29)  the  recent 
instance  of  Antinous  being  deified.  He  alludes  to  the  practices  of 
magicians,  and  says  Christ  was  not  such  (30),  but  fulfilled  prophecy. 
And  yet  it  would  seem  that  along  with  this  appeal  to  prophecy,  of 
which  the  litterateurs  were  making  so  much,  there  was  functioning  in 
real  life  the  daily  increasing  practice  of  magic  in  the  name  of  Jesus. 
And  it  is  in  reference  to  this  practice  that  Justin,  quite  unconsciously 
it  would  seem,  gives  us  the  source  of  the  collection  of  articles  of  Christian 
faith  {Dial.  85):  “Every  demon  exorcised  in  the  name  of  the  Son  of 
God,  the  firstborn  of  all  creatures,  who  was  born  of  the  virgin  and  endured 
human  suffering,  who  was  crucified  by  your  nation  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  who  died  and  rose  from  the  dead  and  ascended  into  heaven — 
every  demon  exorcised  in  this  name,  is  mastered  and  subdued.”  Similar 


THE  PREACHINGS  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


41 


exorcisms  occur  elsewhere  in  Justin  and  the  early  Christian  literature. 
See,  for  instance,  Passion  of  Peter  and  Paul,  c.  56  (Lipsius-Bonnet, 
I,  166).  Origen  frequently  gives  examples  of  such.  The  Essenes, 
it  is  said  (cf.  Legge,  Forerunners  and  Rivals  of  Christianity,  I,  157)  made 
a  vow  not  to  reveal  the  names  of  angels.  The  exorcism  formulae  of 
the  time  were  made  up  in  great  part  of  such.  The  much  disputed 
“ discipline  of  the  secret”  among  Christians  may  have  been  in  some  way 
related  to  this  Essene  practice.  “ Certain  Jewish  exorcists  at  Ephesus” 
are  mentioned  in  Acts  (19:13  ff.),  “who  attempted  to  invoke  the  name 
of  Jesus  upon  those  who  were  possessed  by  evil  spirits,  saying:  ‘I  adjure 
you  by  Jesus  whom  Paul  preaches.’  And  they  were  certain  seven 
sons  of  the  Jewish  chief  priest,  Sceva,  who  were  doing  this” — apparently 
a  perfectly  respectable  practice  in  those  days !  Note  also,  that  the  charge 
under  which  the  apostles  were  arraigned  by  the  Jewish  authorities 
(Acts  4:7)  was  the  practice  of  magic  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  Matthew 
(21:27),  after  relating  the  strange  incident  of  Jesus  cursing  the  fig  tree, 
makes  the  chief  priests  and  elders  of  the  people  put  this  same  question 
to  Jesus:  “By  what  power  do  you  do  these  things?”  and  again  (7:22) 
lets  Jesus  say:  “In  that  day  many  will  say  to  me,  ‘Lord,  Lord,  have  we 
not  prophesied  in  thy  name,  and  in  thy  name  cast  out  demons,  and  in 
thy  name  done  many  wonders  idynameis)  ?  ’  ”  Luke  (17:10)  makes 
the  apostles  say  to  Jesus:  “Even  the  demons  are  subject  to  us  in  thy 
name.”  It  does  not  at  all  necessarily  follow  from  this  that  Jesus  or 
the  apostles  practiced  magic,  but  it  is  manifest  that  when  the  gospels 
and  acts  were  written  magic  practice  had  become  quite  common  among 
Christians,  and  the  exorcisms,  similar  to  those  in  pagan  use,  were 
convenient  statements  of  Christian  belief  about  Jesus,  which  the  apolo¬ 
gists  defended  by  appeal  to  Scripture  prophecy.1 

These  summaries  of  Christian  faith  grew,  perhaps  imperceptibly, 
into  the  creed;  how  early  cannot,  it  seems,  be  affirmed  with  any  certainty. 
What  appears  here  in  the  K.P.  is  doubtless  among  the  earliest  attempts 
briefly  to  state  what  the  apostles  preached,  and  the  repeated  appeal  to 
Scripture  proof  would  point  to  an  early  date,  and  the  absence  of  allusions 
to  Greek  mythology,  so  common  in  other  apologies,  would  indicate  an 
atmosphere-  charged  with  Jewish  influence,  not  very  unlike  that  of  the 
older  elements  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  Acts  and  indeed  the  sermons  given 

1  See  F.  C.  Conybeare,  “Christian  Demonology,”  Jewish  Quarterly  Review ,  IX 
(1897),  59-114;  also  his  Myth ,  Magic ,  and  Morals ,  for  much  suggestive  material, 
though  he  is  at  times  too  sweeping  in  his  generalizations  and  undervalues  the  force  of 
Scripture  appeal  which  was  in  demand  among  the  Gentiles  even  more  than  among 
the  Jews.  Compare  the  appeal  to  Scripture  among  Catholics  and  Protestants. 


42 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


throughout  the  Acts  (e.g.,  17:2  ff.;  28:23  ff.).  See  also  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  (5:6-7). 

It  is  to  be  noted  that,  while  “faith”  ( pistis ),  “believing”  ( pisteu - 
ontes),  is  the  main  thing  in  conversion,  even  to  the  ignoring  of  baptism 
(!),  this  faith  is  rather  a  knowledge,  a  firm  conviction,  the  result  of 
religious  experience  ( episteme ,  gnosis ,  epignontes,  epignous).  These 
words  also  occur  in  other  New  Testament  and  early  apologetic  writings 
(see  Grimm-Thayer,  N.T.  Greek  Lexicon ,  and  Goodspeed,  Index  apolo- 
geticus).  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  faith  in  this  sense,  as  it  was 
conceived  by  Paul1  was  in  great  measure  an  adaptation  from  the  Hellen¬ 
istic  mystery  religions  of  redemption. 

The  “parousia”  spoken  of  (IX)  is  evidently  the  first  advent  of 
Christ,  or  his  manifestation  in  the  incarnation.  “The  things  that  are 
to  come  to  pass  after  him”  may  refer  to  the  second  coming,  or  the 
“parousia”  generally  meant  in  early  Christian  literature.  The  Mura- 
torian  Fragment  (20  ff.)  speaks  of  the  two  advents:  “nativitas,  passio, 
resurrectio,  censervatio  (conversatio  ?)  cum  discipulis,  geminus  ad- 
ventus.”  The  absence  of  insistence  on  the  parousia  is  remarkable, 
considering  the  prominence  of  this  thought  in  other  early  Christian 
writings.2  It  would  seem  (from  Mt.  24:32-34,  compared  with  24:23-25, 
or  10:5-23  with  28:19-20)  that  there  is  more  than  one  source  behind 
even  the  synoptic  view  of  the  parousia.  The  same  difference  is  notice¬ 
able  between  the  Pauline  epistles  and  the  later  gospel  material;  also 
between  the  Apocalypse  and  I  Peter,  for  instance,  or  James  (5:7): 
“Be  patient ,  therefore,  brethren,  until  the  coming  of  the  Lord.  Behold 
the  husbandman  waiteth  for  the  precious  fruit  of  the  earth;  patiently 
bearing  till  he  receive  the  earlier  and  the  latter.”  It  is  evidently  with 
this  latter  literature  that  the  K.P.  agrees. 

The  Petrine  Literature.  To  facilitate  comparison  with  the  Preaching 
of  Peter,  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  the  Epistles  of  Peter,  the  Acts  of  Peter, 
the  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  and  the  sermons  of  Peter  recorded  in  the 

1  See  W.  H.  P.  Hatch,  The  Pauline  Idea  of  Faith  in  Its  Relation  to  the  Jewish  and 
Hellenistic  Religions  (1917),  especially  p.  73;  and  S.  J.  Case,  The  Evolution  of  Early 
Christianity  (1920),  especially  chap,  ix;  also  R.  Reitzenstein,  Die  hellenistischen 
Mysterienreligionen  (1910),  pp.  9,  36,  91.  For  a  thorough  treatment  of  Paul’s  use  of 
the  words  “faith”  and  “believe”  see  E.  D.  Burton  (International  Critical  Com¬ 
mentary”),  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (1920),  pp.  476  ff.) 

2 Mk.  9:9;  13:6-32;  14:62;  Mt.  24:3,  32-44;  10:23;  15:26;  L.  21:31-36;  22:29- 
30;  22:69;  Jo.  6:41;  11:25;  12:25  k;  12:48;  14:3;  14:28;  16:16  f.;  17:24;  18:36; 
Rom.  13:11;  II  Thess.  2: 1-12;  Apoc.  22: 7-20;  II  Pet. 3: 10,  cf.  3:8;  Didache,  chap. 
16;  Ep.  Barn.,  chap.  21;  and  the  apocalyptic  generally. 


THE  PREACHINGS  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


43 


Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  in  the  Clementine  Homilies  and  Recognitions , 
are  gathered  here,  noting  only  the  similarities,  though  it  should  be 
remarked  that  here  as  elsewhere  the  dissimilarities  are  sometimes 
greater. 

The  Gospel  of  Peter  (X),  41,  mentions  the  preaching  of  Christ  to  the 
souls  in  prison,  which  is  probably  in  a  K.P.  fragment  (Strom,  vi.  5. 
48  f.)  (cf.  I  Pet.  3:19);  (XIV)  59  speaks  of  “the  twelve  disciples.” 
“Jesus”  and  “Azymes”  are  used  as  in  K.P.  “Israel”  occurs  twice, 
“Jews”  six  times.  The  word  “Evangelion”  might  be  insisted  on. 
It  was  a  common  Greek  word,  but  received  a  new  and  special  meaning, 
apparently  in  the  Petrine  tradition  (cf.  Bacon,  Is  Mark  a  Roman  Gospel  ? 
p.  40).  Reading  Ev.  Pet.  1:1,  45-46,  one  is  convinced  he  has  before  him 
a  fragment  older  than  Mt.  27:24,  54,  certainly  older  than  Mt.  28:18-20. 
“Der  neue  Fund,”  says  Dobschuetz  (p.  68,  n.  1),  “legt  es  allerdings 
nahe,  daran  zu  denken,  dass  im  Kerygma  Petri  das  Evangelium  Petri 
benutzt  sein  moechte.” 

The  Epistles  of  Peter  have  some  material  in  common  with  K.P., 
viz.:  K.P  II;  II  Pet.  3:4-5 — K.P.  Ill:  I  Pet.  1:14 — K.P.  IV:  I  Pet. 
3:22;  K.P.  Ill:  I  Pet.  1:14 — II  Pet.  1:4;  2:11 — K.P.  V:  II  Pet. 
3:17;  V:  I  Pet.  2:9-10 — K.P.  VI:  II  Pet.  3:9 — K.P.  VII:  I  Pet.  1:12; 
I  Pet.  1:5;  1:10;  1:21;  1:23  ff.;  2:1-2;  II  Pet.  1 : 15  ff.;  3:1 — K.P. 
IX;  I  Pet.  1 : 11. 

The  Acts  of  Peter  with  Simon  (c.  5  f.): 

Lugentibus  autem  eis  et  ieiunantibus,  iam  insticiebat  Deus  in  futurum 
Pet  rum  in  Hierosolymis.  Adimpletis  duodecim  annis  quod  illi  praeceperat 
Dominus,  Christus  ostendit  illi  visionem  talem,  dicens  ei:  Petre,  quem  tu 
eiecisti  de  Judaea  adprobatum  magum  Simonem,  iterum  praeoccupavit  vos 
Romae,  et  in  brevi  scias;  omnes  enim  qui  in  me  crediderunt  dissolvit  astutia 
sua  et  inergia  sua  Satanas  ....  noli  moras  facere;  crastina  die  proficiscere 
.  .  .  .  [cf.  K.P.  VI]. 

Schmidt  says  (“Praxeis  Petrou,”  T.U. ,  XXIV,  1,  p.  81): 

Ob  und  wie  weit  das  K.P.  auf  die  theologische  Gedankenbildung  des 
Verfassers  der  Petrusakten  einen  merklichen  Einfluss  ausgeuebt  hat  .  .  .  . 
laesst  sich  leider  bei  den  geringen  Fragmenten  jener  Schrift  nicht  entscheiden. 
Unter  aller  Reserve  moechte  ich  noch  auf  die  Predigt  in  Kap.  24  hinweisen, 
wo  Petrus  dem  Simon  Magus  gegenueber,  der  die  landlaeufigen  Einreden  der 
Juden  und  Heiden  wider  die  Gottheit  Christi  vorbringt,  elf  Stellen  hinterein- 

ander  aus  prophetischen  Biichern  citiert . Auf  das  K.P.  fuehrt  mich  die 

von  Clemens  Al.  Strom,  vi.  15.  128  citierte  Stelle  ....  [quoting  K.P.  IX]. 
Vielleicht  waren  neben  den  allegemeinen  Angaben  auch  specielle  Citate  aus 


44 


TEE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


einzellen  alttestamentlichen  Schriften  beigefuegt,  jedenfalls  ist  die  theo- 
logische  Haltung  in  den  Petrusakten  dieselbe,  da  Petrus  seine  Predigt  mit  den 
Worten  schliesst:  “O  viri  Romani,  si  essetis  scientes  profeticas  scripturas,, 
[p.  72,  13  ff.].  Ebenso  heisst  es  [p.  61,  8]:  “tractabat  eis  Petrus  de  propheticas 
scrip  turas.” 

The  Apocalypse  of  Peter  (c.  5)  speaks  of  “us  the  twelve  disciples,” 
like  the  K.P.  (VII)  and  the  other  Petrine  writings. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  gives  seven  sermons  of  Peter,  which  in  many 
aspects  bear  resemblance  to  the  K.P.  Compare  the  following  passages: 
K.P.  II:  A.  3:12-26 — K.P.  V:  A.  2:39  (contrast  A.  22:21  ff.) — K.P. 
V:  A.  10:35)— K.P.  VI-VIII:  A.  2:38;  3:17;  3:19;  5:29-33;  10:43— 
K.P.  VII:  A.  1:16-26;  1:24;  K.P.  VII:  A.  3:16;  10:42 — K.P.  VII: 
A.  4:4;  6:15;  7:11— K.P.  IX:  A.  1:16:  2:16-23  (io:35-43);  3:i5- 

The  Clementina  contain  much  material  which  was  doubtless  once 
upon  a  time  common  with  the  K.P.,  but  which  cannot  now  be  picked 
out  of  the  vast  accretion  of  romantic  fiction.  Compare  K.P.  Ill  with 
H.  x.  16;  x.  9.  23,  25;  vi.  23;  xvii.  7;  R.  v.  20.  30. 

“Alle  diese  Schriften,”  says  Bardenhewer  (G.A.L.,  I,  351),  “sind  in- 
haltlich  auf  das  engste  miteinander  verwandt  und  ohne  Zweifel  aus  einer 
gemeinsamen  Vorlage  oder  Quelle  geflossen.” 

From  the  foregoing  comparison  it  is  apparent  that  as  far  as  can  be 
determined  from  the  extant  fragments,  the  sources  of  the  K.P.  were 
remotely  and  indirectly  at  least  both  Greek  philosophy  and  O.T.  Scrip¬ 
ture;  proximately  and  directly,  the  principal  source  was  Jewish-Hellenic 
thought,  Christianized  and  restated  on  the  basis  of  the  Petrine  tradition. 
In  the  language,  probably  of  Alexandria  in  the  late  first  Christian  century, 
it  restates  the  personification  of  Nomos  and  Logos;  belief  in,  and 
worship  of,  one  only  God,  invisible,  the  Creator  of  the  world;  repentance 
for  sin  committed  in  ignorance;  appeal  to  Scripture  and  supernatural 
revelation  handed  down  by  tradition;  polemic  against  idol,  animal, 
and  angel  worship;  and  connects  all  this  with  the  historic  person, 
Jesus,  a  dying,  rising,  heaven-exalted  hero-god,  foretold  by  Scripture, 
and  the  mediator  of  a  “New  Covenant”  with  God,  which  is  to  replace 
the  antiquated  Greek  and  Jewish  dispensations. 

The  similarity  of  thought  and  expression  between  the  K.P.  and 
Jewish-Hellenistic  literature  of  Alexandria — Wisdom,  the  Sibyl,  Philo — 
and  the  suspicion  of  Valentinian  Gnosticism  which  attached  to  it  from 
its  having  been  used  by  Heracleon,  point  to  an  Alexandrine  source, 
even  if  the  K.P.  were  itself  free  from  Gnostic  taint.  But  there  is  an 


THE  PREACHINGS  PLACE  IN  LITERATURE 


45 


unmistakable  Gnostic  flavor  in  its  use  of  such  words  as  epignous,  gnosis , 
dynamis,  % sychai  logekai ,  etc.  But  probably  this  would  be  sufficiently 
accounted  for  by  the  common  use  of  such  vocabulary,  borrowed  from 
the  mystery  religions  of  the  day,  or  possibly  by  the  writer’s  former 
initiation  into  such  mysteries,  or  at  least  his  consciousness  of  addressing 
men  who  had  been  so  initiated. 

Waiving  the  question  of  relative  chronology  for  the  moment,  it 
seems  impossible  to  point  to  any  source  which  the  K.P.  used  verbally. 
It  is  familiar  with  N.T.  material,  especially  such  material  as  is  found 
in  the  sermons  of  Peter  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  But  even  here 
literary  dependence  cannot  with  certainty  be  affirmed.  The  two 
documents  more  probably  have  a  common  source.  Again,  even  such 
striking  similarity  as  is  seen  between  K.P.  VI  and  Rom.  10:14,  or  K.P. 
IX  and  Jo.  15:22,  does  not  necessarily  indicate  literary  dependence. 
Some  kinship  of  thought  and  expression  must  surely  be  conceded,  in 
like  manner,  between  the  K.P.  and  the  Hermetic  Literature.  But 
here  again  it  is  probably  of  an  unliterary  kind.  There  is,  however, 
unmistakably  a  literary  dependence  between  the  K.P.  and  the  Apology 
of  Aristides,  of  Athenagoras,  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias ,  the  Sibyl,  the 
Epistle  to  Diagnetus,  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  probably  also  Justin, 
Tatian,  and  other  apologists. 

For  the  present  purpose  it  will  be  enough  to  consider  the  parallels 
between  the  K.P.  and  Aristides,  the  Shepherd,  and  Barnabas. 

A  careful  comparison  of  K.P.  and  Aristides  will  surely  leave  no 
doubt  that  either  Aristides  used  the  K.P.  or  vice  versa.  That  K.  used  A. 
is  not  only  improbable,  considering  the  primitive  simplicity  of  K.  and 
the  application  and  repetition  of  A. — e.g.,  the  “third  race”  expression 
fits  in  so  naturally  in  the  K.  passage,  introduced  by  the  comparison  of 
the  Old  Covenant,  which  is  antiquated,  with  the  New,  which  the  Chris¬ 
tians  have  received  and  in  which  they  worship  God  in  a  “new  way” 
as  a  “third  race,”  not  as  the  Jews  and  Greeks — but  is  also  excluded 
by  a  further  comparison  of  K.  with  Pastor  Hermae  and  Barnabas. 
It  is  quite  plain  that  P.H.  used  K.  The  literary  parallels  are  too  numer¬ 
ous  and  close  to  be  accounted  for  in  any  other  way.  The  material  com¬ 
mon  to  the  two  is  so  much  more  congenial  to  K.  than  to  P.H.  that 
there  can  be  no  doubt  it  was  P.H.  that  borrowed  from  K.  The  same  is 
true  of  Barnabas.  The  prophetic  announcement  of  the  parousia, 
sufferings,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension  of  Christ;  the  mission  of 
the  apostles  to  preach  ( keryssein )  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  to  announce 
the  future,  the  exousia,  diatheke,  sabbaton  proton,  neomenias,  martyrion 


46 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


of  those  who  having  heard  did  not  believe — all  this  common  material 
cannot  have  come  by  accident,  and  it  is  plainly  more  congenial  to  K.P. 
than  to  Barnabas.  The  fact  that  B.  and  P.  do  not  use  K.  so  freely  as  A. 
did,  is  easily  understood,  considering  the  allegorical  character  of  B. 
and  the  apocalyptic  character  of  P.  That  K.  is  so  much  in  accord  with 
A.  is  only  another  proof  of  its  apologetic  character.  Moreover,  as 
Robinson  has  already  observed  (p.  91),  the  Epistle  to  Diagnetus  has 
material  in  common  with  K.P.  which  does  not  appear  in  the  present 
Aristides  apology.  From  this  it  may  be  argued  that  the  writer  to 
Diagnetus  had  both  the  K.P.  and  A.  However,  considering  that  our 
Aristides  is  also  quite  a  patchwork  of  fragments  from  the  Greek,  Syriac, 
and  Armenian  remnants  of  the  original  apology,  we  cannot  press  this 
argument.  It  is  highly  probable,  though,  that  both  Aristides  and 
Diagnetus  contain  other  fragments  of  the  K.P.  which  cannot  be  recog¬ 
nized,  from  the  lack  of  more  knowledge  of  what  the  original  K.P.  con¬ 
tained. 

It  seems  reasonable,  then,  to  conclude  from  what  has  thus  far 
been  said,  that  the  K.P.  is  apologetic  in  character.  This  will  be  still 
more  apparent  from  what  is  to  be  said  in  chapter  iii.  There  seems  no 
room  for  doubt  that  the  K.P.  is  older  than  the  Aristides  apology;  and 
room  for  very  little  doubt  that  it  is  older  than  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias 
and  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas.  The  date  of  these  writings  will  be  consid¬ 
ered  in  chapter  iv,  and  an  attempt  made  to  determine  the  date  of  the 
K.P.  more  narrowly. 


Ill 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETIC 

In  literary  discussion  of  this  kind  there  is  danger,  against  which  one 
must  try  to  be  constantly  on  guard,  of  forgetting  that  writings  of  what¬ 
ever  sort,  including  such  apologetics  as  are  here  under  consideration, 
are  little  more  than  the  record  of  the  thought  of  an  accomplished  few, 
rather  philosophically  inclined,  and  that  such  thought  is  little  more  than 
an  effort  to  adjust  one’s  self  consciously  to  his  whole  being’s  reaction 
to  the  new  situations  in  which  he  finds  himself  drifting  with  the  irresist¬ 
ible  stream  of  ever  “changing,  testing,  shifting”  human  life  of  which  his 
is  a  part.  The  philosophical  systems  and  schools  of  Greece  are  but 
expanses  of  this  stream  of  thought;  and  the  writings  which  have  pre¬ 
served  that  thought  for  us  are  but  the  record  of  the  adjustment  of  great 
minds  to  their  environment,  an  environment  composed  of  elements 
from  various  earlier  sources,  blending  in  the  new,  as  our  environment  in 
America  is  a  blending  of  elements  that  have  drifted  to  us,  colored  by 
the  soil  and  tempered  by  the  climes  through  which  the  stream  and  all 
its  tributaries  flowed.  When  those  philosophers  discussed  the  origin 
of  things,  the  composition  of  bodies,  the  relation  of  the  gods  to  man, 
they  were  doubtless  reacting  to  their  environment  as  vitally  as  the 
modern  pragmatist  to  the  demand  of  something  more  “workable” 
than  the  senescent  systems  the  schools  were  trying  in  vain  to  rejuvenate. 
It  was  not  from  mere  personal  caprice  that  the  “Physiologists”  tried  to 
define  the  world  in  terms  of  nature.  It  was  doubtless  reaction  against 
exaggerated  Olympianism;  as  the  gods  of  Olympus  were  raised  to  their 
dignity  not  so  much  by  the  poetry  of  Homer  as  by  the  reaction  of  a  race 
of  men  who  were  dissatisfied  with  the  grosser  “gods  of  the  earth.”  Nor 
was  it  mere  aesthetic  superiority  that  lifted  Socrates  and  Plato  out  of  the 
snarling  dialetics  of  the  Sophists  into  “the  place  of  eternal  truths”; 
nor  again  any  peculiar  earthly-mindedness  of  Aristotle  that  planted  his 
system  firmly  on  the  ground  of  empiricism;  nor  desperate  pessimism 
and  optimism  that  divided  the  schools  that  followed.  Real  vital 
problems  were  being  struggled  with  all  this  time,  and  the  philosophers 
have  left  us  a  partial  record  of  their  solutions. 

But  all  this  time,  outside  the  cloisters  of  the  philosophers  and  the 
poets,  the  mass  of  Greek  men  and  women  engaged  in  matter-of-fact 


47 


48 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


concerns  of  life,  with  all  its  joys  and  sorrows,  with  its  cravings  for  comfort 
and  encouragement,  and  hope-giving  assurances  that  would  make  life 
worth  living,  there  flowed  the  unfailing  stream  of  popular  religion, 
which  was  creating,  and  solving  in  their  very  creation,  those  problems 
over  which  the  philosopher  with  all  his  wisdom  was  worrying.  Doubt¬ 
less  there  were  then,  as  in  later  times  and  now,  ceremonious  demonstra¬ 
tions  of  grief  and  gladness,  the  whole  people  sympathizing  with  their 
divine  patrons  and  helpers,  and  devotion  fed  the  creative  imagination 
with  additions  and  modifications  of  traditional  mythology  to  meet 
new  needs,  and  the  new  creations  inspired  fresh  devotion,  the  experience 
of  which  was  a  comforting  support  to  a  life  of  trial  and  toil.  These 
mystery  religions,  springing  from  undiscovered  sources  in  the  dim  past, 
had  grown  and  thrived  and  died  away,  leaving  their  heritage  to  younger 
cults,  till,  at  the  birth  of  Christianity,  the  Graeco-Roman  world  was 
rife  with  popular  religions,  thrown  together  in  intimate  association  by 
the  mighty  empire  which  not  only  established  means  of  easy  communi¬ 
cation,  transportation,  and  travel  from  the  Isles  of  the  North  to  the  cata¬ 
racts  of  the  Nile  and  the  banks  of  the  Ganges,  but  shifted  great  masses  of 
population  to  distant  homes,  encouraged  the  wanderlust  of  the  soldier, 
the  merchant,  the  craftsman,  and  the  laborer,  and  trafficked  in  slaves  as 
extensively  as  in  chattels.1 

Easily  it  happened  that  the  stranger  in  a  strange  country  found 
himself  estranged  from  his  gods,  and  easily  he  learned  to  worship  in  new 
ways.  But  it  also  happened  that  what  might  have  passed  unnoticed  in 
his  home  religion,  to  which  he  had  been  inured  from  childhood,  now  in 
his  new  cult  aroused  his  indignation  and  protest,  especially  if  the 
practice  contradicted  his  standards  of  morality  or  demanded  expense 
to  which  he  was  not  accustomed,  or  which  seemed  exorbitant.  His 
observations  called  the  attention  of  others  to  the  defects  and  created 
discontent.  Moreover,  during  the  first  century  b.c.  especially,  itinerant 
preachers  had  been  popularizing  various  doctrines  which  were  welcomed 
by  those  who  felt  any  dissatisfaction  with  their  old  religion — not  to  the 
abandonment  of  the  old,  but  to  a  considerable  detriment,  as  it  helped 
them  to  a  more  enlightened  view  which  gradually  prepared  the  ground 
for  world-religions  like  Mithraism  and  Christianity,  and  which  Judaism 
might  have  been,  could  it  have  been  denationalized.2  The  Egyptian 

1  See  Case,  The  Evolution  of  Early  Christianity ,  especially  chaps,  iii  and  vi:  L. 
Friedlaender,  Sittengeschichte  Roms.9,  chaps,  iii  and  vii  and  i,  pp.  158-237,  389  £f. 

2  M.  Friedlaender,  Geschichte  der  juedischen  Apologetik  als  Vorgeschichte  des  Chris- 
tentums ,  pp.  99,  292;  Zeller,  1114,315  f.;  andKrueger,  Philo  und  Josephus  als  Apologeten 
des  Judenthums  (Leipzig,  1906),  p.  44. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETIC 


49 


mysteries  of  Isis  worship,  the  Phrygian  cult  of  Cybele  and  Attis, 
especially,  were  widely  popular.  But  it  would  seem  that  no  other  religion 
of  the  Mediterranean  world  made  such  a  strong  appeal  to  the  moral 
sense  as  the  Jewish. 

After  Alexander’s  diffusion  of  Hellenic  culture  had  created  such 
centers  of  enlightenment  as  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  and  the  cities  of 
Cilicia  and  Asia  Minor  were  thronged  with  Greeks  and  orientals,  it  was 
but  natural  that  Jews  in  this  “Hellenic  Dispersion”  should,  like  their 
fellow-citizens,  become  aware  of  certain  antiquated  disadvantages  of 
their  religion,  as  well  as  of  its  superior  elements,  and  seek  to  readjust 
their  beliefs  and  practices  to  the  demands  of  this  newly  awakened 
religious  consciousness.  The  Jew  never  entirely  broke  away  from  his 
national  connection  with  Jerusalem,  and  there  was  continual  communica¬ 
tion  between  “the  Holy  City”  and  “the  children  of  God  that  were 
dispersed.”  This  communication  mutually  affected  the  Palestinian 
and  the  Hellenistic  Jew.  Saul  of  Tarsus  was  “raised  a  Pharisee,”  and 
there  was  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  6:9)  a  strong  element  with  pronounced 
Hellenistic  tendencies.  The  opposition,  as  usual,  emphasized  the  points 
of  difference,  the  one  party  insisting  ever  more  rigorously  on  conformity 
to  “the  traditions  of  the  Fathers,”  the  other  protesting  against  man- 
imposed  burdens. 

The  political  situation  and  national  vicissitudes  following  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  enhanced  by  the  struggle  against  the  Syrian 
monarchs,  whetted  the  pious  Jews’  expectancy  of  a  messianic  deliverer, 
or  provoked  them  to  look  for  a  general  collapse  of  the  wicked  world, 
to  be  followed  by  a  new  state  of  things  in  which  “the  people  of  God 
would  be  triumphant,”  “when  Japheth  would  dwell  in  the  tabernacles 
of  Shem,  and  Canaan  be  his  slave.”  This  apocalyptic  hope  was  strong 
enough  to  keep  many  a  good  Jew  to  a  faithful  observance  of  the  Law. 
Others  looked  for  a  more  worldly  kingdom,  and  sought  to  appease  the 
existing  ruler,  or  threaten  him  with  God’s  vengeance,  while  making  the 
best  of  a  hard  lot.  While  outside  of  Palestine,  especially  in  Alexandria, 
the  Jews  had  given  up  in  great  part  the  observance  of  the  Law  and  placed 
their  hope  in  a  virtuous  life1  they  still  clung  to  their  Jewish  nationalism 
and  a  more  or  less  dormant  hope  of  a  future  Messiah. 

This  messianic  hope  of  the  Jews  was  nothing  strange  to  their  gentile 
neighbors.  A  Golden  Age  of  some  description  was  the  vague  hope 
that  comforted  many  a  one  who  took  a  pessimistic  view  of  the  world. 
But  it  was  the  beautiful  life  of  virtue  the  Jew  aspired  to,  and  the  sublime 

1  Strabo  xvi.  2.  55,  and  Diodorus  ii.  85;  xx.  3. 


50 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


spirituality  of  the  incomparable  Hebrew  Scriptures  that  most  attracted  the 
better  sort  of  folk  among  the  Gentiles.1  The  Hebrew  Scriptures  had  been 
translated  into  Greek  and  several  excellent  contributions  of  Alexandrine 
composition  added,  especially  adapted  to  the  Hellenistic  world.  These 
Scriptures  were  not  unknown  to  the  educated  Greek- speaking  world 
and  could  be  heard  read  in  the  synagogues,  of  which  there  were  many 
in  the  cities  and  larger  towns.  It  is  estimated2  that  there  were  in  the 
first  century  b.c.  a  million  Jews  in  Egypt.  And  at  Rome,  where  they 
had  begun  to  locate  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  and  were  greatly 
multiplied  in  Pompey’s  time  (63  b.c.),  there  were  at  the  end  of  the  first 
century  b.c.  not  less  than  8,000. 3  Proselytes  and  “  Godfearers”  were 
numerous,  in  spite  of  the  nationalist  restrictions  and  humiliating  condi¬ 
tions  for  obtaining  this  much  coveted  participation  in  the  Jewish  religion. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  had  these  restrictions  been  relaxed  the 
Jewish  religion  would  have  given  fair  promise  of  becoming  a  world- 
religion.  It  was  this  attraction  to  Judaism  and  the  easy  conditions  of 
admission  that  gave  Christianity  such  recommendation  when  it  appeared. 

From  an  all  but  imperceptible  beginning  in  Palestine,  a  new  religious 
movement,  the  offspring  of  the  Jewish  religion  which  the  world  had  long 
admired  but  which  shut  out  the  Gentile  from  full  and  free  share  in  its 
nationalizing  exclusiveness — a  movement  instinct  apparently  from  the 
start  with  Hellenistic  humanness  and  world-wide  sympathy,  centered 
about  the  lovable  person  of  Jesus,  whom  the  Jewish  authorities  had 
succeeded  in  having  the  Roman  governor  remove  by  execution,  but 
whose  memory  lived  on  and  gave  life  and  light  and  enthusiasm  to  those 
who  found  in  him  the  living  expression  of  all  that  was  best  in  the  religion 
they  demanded  as  their  own  and  the  whole  world’s.  The  opposition 
and  persecution  excited  by  the  little  band  of  Jesus’  disciples  brought 
them  to  the  realization  of  the  fact  that  they  were  one,  inasmuch  as  they 
were  the  common  object  of  Jewish  persecution,  and  that  their  “com¬ 
munity”  made  little  distinction  between  “Jew  and  Greek.”  Forceably 
driven,  if  not  freely  emerging,  beyond  Palestine,  communities  sprang 
up  in  all  the  Mediterranean  world.  Love  of  God  and  man,  enthusiastic 
attachment  to  Jesus  and  all  his  name  stood  for,  and  an  ardent  hope  of 
his  glorious  return,  an  unwavering  assurance  ( pistis )  resulting  from 
religious  experience  of  having  broken  with  sin  and  turned  to  God 

1  Schuerer,  III,  24  f. 

3  Schuerer,  Die  Gemeindverfassung  der  Juden  in  Rom  in  dev  Kaiserzeit  (Leipzig, 
1 89  7) ,  p .  6 1 .  For  an  exhaustive  treatment  see  J uster,  Les  Juifs  dans  V empire  romaine. 

3  Pliny  Ep.  x.  96. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETIC 


51 


(■ metanoia ),  mystically  signified  by  baptism  and  manifested  by  spiritual 
emotion  (cf.  e.g.,  Acts  10:44) — these,  and  not  nationality  or  other 
formality,  made  disciples  of  Jesus,  and  made  them  in  countless  numbers, 
not  only  among  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  but  also  and  especially 
among  the  Gentiles.  Within  half  a  century  the  new  religion  had 
spread  around  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  and  grown  so  prominent 
that  we  hear  complaints  of  the  pagan  temples  being  vacated.1 

While  Christianity  was  thus  rapidly  spreading;  while  the  mission¬ 
aries  were  concerned  almost  exclusively  with  their  new  converts,  instruct¬ 
ing  them  principally  by  preaching,  or  by  letters  as  occasion  demanded; 
while  the  Christians  themselves  lived  in  the  enthusiasm  of  their  new 
religious  experience  and  fervent  expectation  of  the  coming  of  Christ,  little 
attention  was  given  to  parrying  pagan  attacks  upon  the  new  religion. 
But  toward  the  end  of  the  first  century,  when  the  prophet  John  of  Ephesus 
lifts  up  his  voice  in  an  apocalyptic  burst  of  zeal  to  deplore  that  the 
churches  “have  left  their  first  love,”  or  are  “blasphemed  by  the  syna¬ 
gogue  of  Satan,”  or  are  annoyed  by  “those  teaching  the  doctrine  of 
Balaam,”  or  are  “eating  things  offered  to  idols,”  or  are  “dead”  spirit¬ 
ually,  or  “are  neither  hot  nor  cold”;  when  “heresies”  are  beginning  to 
break  out;  when  the  spiritually  gifted  are  in  clash  with  the  worldly 
prudent  who  are  trying  to  restore  order  by  means  of  organization; 
when  the  church  of  Rome  is  called  upon  to  assume  the  responsibility  of 
leadership  (Heb.  5:12),  and  responds  with  a  tone  of  authority  and  a 
note  of  irenic  conciliation,  counseling  respect  and  obedience  to  civil 
authority  instead  of  frantic  insubordination,  unity  instead  of  division, 
and  begins  actively  to  quell  religious  rebellion  even  at  Corinth;  when 
we  find  “Catholic”  epistles,  or  encyclical  letters,  and  those  carefully 
composed  “Gospels,”  in  circulation;  when  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles  is  beginning  to  be  insisted  upon  as  the  norm  of  Christian 
belief  and  practice,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  recounts  the  origin  and 
growth,  under  the  guidance  of  the  promised  Spirit  of  Truth,  of  the 
“Church”  and  the  organization  of  its  “ministry” — it  is  plainly  time  to 
expect  that  Christian  writers  are  ready  to  devote  their  attention  not 
only  to  “ those  within”  but  also  to  take  cognizance  of  the  interests  of  the 
church  even  among  those  “who  are  not  of  the  fold.” 

Christianity  was  not  the  first  religion  that  had  struggled  for  existence 
in  the  Mediterranean  world.  It  was  not  the  first  that  had  been  perse¬ 
cuted  and  calumniated.  And  when  it  saw  itself  confronted  by  opposi¬ 
tion  and  called  upon  to  defend  itself,  it  had  not  far  to  look  for  material 

1  Pliny  Ep.  x.  97. 


52 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


and  a  model  for  its  task.  For  centuries  rationalizing  Greek  philosophy1 
had  been  conducting  a  polemic  against  irrational  superstition  and 
idolatry,  while  at  the  same  time  portraying  in  eloquent  language  the 
dignity  of  man,  the  beauty  of  virtue,  the  well-ordered  providence  of  the 
universe,  the  unity  of  nature  which  it  extolled  as  God.  Ridicule  of 
divination,  of  animal  and  idol-worship,  of  superstition,  of  the  impurities 
and  debaucheries  of  the  gods  and  goddesses,  had  become  commonplaces 
of  polite  literature  and  philosophy.2  The  mystery  cults  had  allegorized 
and  spiritualized  traditional  mythology  into  quite  a  respectable,  often 
truly  sublime,  system  of  theology.3  Historians  and  scientists  had 
tendered  their  service  to  the  cause  of  truth.  But  it  was  especially  the 
great  Jewish  apologists4  that  directly  influenced  the  Christians,  for  the 
attacks  upon  Christianity  were  often  identical5  with  those  upon  Judaism, 
the  two  religions  being  for  some  time  hardly  distinguishable  to  the 
heathen.6 

In  a  certain  sense,  the  entire  Old  Testament,  especially  the  Septuagint 
translation,  was  an  apology  for  Judaism.  Not  only  is  this  clear  from  the 
result  of  that  translation  and  the  use  it  served  the  Alexandrine  Jews, 
but  it  is  explicitly  stated  in  such  apologetic  literature  as  the  Pseudo- 
Aristeas  Letter.  The  Epistle  of  Jeremy,  the  Books  of  Maccabees, 
Esther,  Judith,  Tobit,  the  Apocalypses  of  Daniel,  of  Baruch,  of  Enoch, 
the  Sibyl,  the  Wisdom  of  Jesu  Sirach,  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
are  in  great  part  apologetic.  But  it  was  in  Alexandria  in  the  second 
century  b.c.  that  Jewish  apologetic  in  the  stricter  sense  began.  “Polem¬ 
ical  tracts  forged  against  the  Jews  came  into  vogue  during  the  reign  of 
Physcon  (146-117  b.c.),  and  they  certainly  continued  to  be  the  fashion” 
(Mahaffy,  quoted  by  Charles,  Jewish  Apoc.  and  Pseudepig.,  I,  158). 
Calumnies  of  every  variety  were  invented  to  arouse  suspicion  or  hatred 

1  Decharme,  La  Critique  des  traditions  religieuses  chez  le  Grecs;  Dodeckenmeyer, 
Die  Geschichte  des  gr.  Skeptismus;  Case,  chap.  viii. 

2Origen  Contra  Cels.  i.  26;  v.  6;  Geffcken,  Zwei  gr.  Apol.,  XXIV,  41  and  73. 

3  Reitzenstein,  Die  hellenistischen  Mysterien  Religionen;  and  Case,  chap.  ix. 

4  M.  Friedlaender,  Geschichte  der  juedischen  Apologetik  als  V  or  geschichte  des 
Christentums,  Zuerich,  1913. 

s  For  instance,  the  calumny  that  the  Jews  adored  an  ass’s  head,  Josephus 
Against  Apion  ii.  7;  see  Friedlaender,  Gesch.jued.  Apol.,  p.  375;  Tacitus  v.  3-4  and 
v.  5.  The  same  calumny  was  spread  against  Christians,  see  Min.,  Felix,  Octavius , 
chaps,  ix,  xxviii;  and  Tertullian  Apol.  xvi;  the  Graffiti,  still  extant  in  the  Kirchini- 
anum,  Rome,  representing  either  a  Christian  or  a  Jew  adoring  a  crucified  ass,  is  well 
known. 

6  See  Suetonius  Vita  Claudi  25. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETIC 


53 


against  the  Jews.  History  was  falsified,  the  Jewish  practices  were 
ridiculed,  their  antiquity  denied,  their  morality  reproached,  their  racial 
attachment  misinterpreted,  their  exclusiveness  was  considered  mis¬ 
anthropy,  their  aversion  to  pagan  worship  declared  treason,  and  such 
ridiculous  stories  as  that  they  adored  an  ass’s  head  in  the  Holy  of  Holies 
in  Jerusalem  told  and  believed.  Aristobulus,  who  wrote  about  1 70-1 50 
b.c.,  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  Jewish  apologist,  but  what  is  attributed 
to  him  is  probably  not  older  than  the  first  century  b.c.  Philo,  early  in 
the  first  century  a.d.,  and  Josephus,  toward  the  end  of  that  century, 
were  the  greatest  of  Jewish  apologists  whose  works  have  been  preserved. 
Of  Artapanus  not  much  is  known,  further  than  that  he  lived  in  Egypt 
in  the  beginning  of  the  first  century  b.c.  and  defended  Judaism  against 
heathen  calumny,  contending  that  the  Egyptians  were  greatly  indebted 
to  them,  and  pointing  out  the  ridiculous  features  of  animal  and  idol 
worship.  It  is  especially  noteworthy  that  he  claims  Abraham  taught 
the  Egyptians  astrology,  betraying  the  favor  which  astral  learning 
enjoyed  among  the  Egyptian  Jews  of  the  first  century  b.c. 

In  answer  to  the  heathen  calumnies  the  Jews  not  only  pointed  to 
their  history,  their  Scriptures,  their  law,  the  high  esteem  in  which  they 
were  regarded  by  the  better  sort  of  pagans  themselves,  but  gave  examples 
of  their  wisdom,  their  heroism,  their  philanthropy.  In  refutation  of  the 
charge  that  they  were  traitors  they  called  attention  to  their  patent  practice 
of  praying  daily  for  the  Emperor,  though,  as  Josephus  records  them  as 
saying  ( B.J.  ii.  10.  4)  when  they  protested  against  Petronius  erecting 
the  Emperor  Gaius’  statue  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem:  “For  the 
Emperor  and  the  Roman  people  we  offer  sacrifice  thrice  a  day,  but  he 
will  have  to  slaughter  the  whole  Jewish  people  before  he  can  erect  this 
statue;  they  are  ready  to  offer  themselves  and  their  wives  and  children 
there  in  sacrifice.”  Against  the  charge  of  misanthropy  Philo  reminds 
the  accusers  that  the  Jews  forbid  abortion  and  the  exposure  of  infants, 
and  love  even  animals.1  Nothing  was  more  often  remarked  by  the 
pagans  than  that  the  Jews  were  atheists,  not  worshiping  the  gods,  and 
nothing  was  so  emphatically  denied  by  the  Jews,  and  in  their  apology 
they  took  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to  instruct  their  readers  in  lessons 
of  love  to  God,  the  Father  of  all,  to  all  mankind;  mercy,  purity,  faithful¬ 
ness,  piety,  and  every  virtue.  Much,  if  not  all,  of  Philo’s  work  was  apolo¬ 
getic,  but  directly  so  were  his  great  treatises  Against  Flaccus,  and  On  the 
Legation  to  Cains.  These  two  works  became  models  for  Christians  to 
imitate,  and  following  Philo’s  example  the  Christian  apologists,  almost 

1  Friedlaender,  Gesch.  jued.  Apol.,  p.  278. 


54 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


without  exception  during  the  second  century,  addressed  their  apologies 
to  the  emporer.  The  much  discussed  treatise  of  Philo  on  the  Therapeutae 
or  The  Contemplative  Life,  is  clearly  shown  by  Wendland1  to  be  apologetic. 
Wendland,  in  that  pioneer  investigation  of  this  field,  also  points  out 
that  Philo  was  not  entirely  original  in  his  work,  but  had  freely  used 
the  polemic  against  idolatry  made  by  early  Greek  writers,  especially 
the  academic  skeptics.  Philo’s  fascinating  portrayal  of  the  beauty  of 
such  a  life  as  he  imagines  ( ?)  the  Therapeutae,  or  “  the  elite  of  the 
Jewish  spiritualists,”  were  leading,  was  doubtless  the  suggestion  and  the 
source  of  similar  descriptions  of  Christian  life  in  the  apologies  of  Aristides 
and  Athenagoras  and  the  Letter  to  Diagnetus,  and  all  the  Christian 
apologies  almost  without  exception.  It  has  already  been  briefly  indi¬ 
cated  that  the  Christian  apologists  and  theologians  were  greatly  indebted 
to  the  Logos  doctrine  of  Philo,  and  it  might  be  shown  that  Philo  was 
in  turn  indebted  to  Greek  philosophy  and  the  mystery  religions,  especially 
the  Hermetic.  Not  only  does  Philo  frankly  and  frequently  acknowledge 
his  indebtedness  to  tradition,  but  how  freely  he  used  sources  is  glaringly 
apparent  from  the  conflicting  elements  which  he  is  not  even  at  pains 
to  harmonize. 

This  Jewish-Hellenistic  traditional  lore  passed  almost  bodily  to  the 
Alexandrine  Christians,  and  has  been  preserved  especially  by  Clement.2 
It  is  hardly  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  Christianity  of  Alexandria 
owed  quite  as  much  to  Philo  as  Hellenic  Christianity  owed  to  Paul,  or 
Palestinian  Christianity  to  rabbinical  Judaism. 

Flavius  Josephus,  though  writing  toward  the  end  of  the  first  Christian 
century,  manifestly  influenced  Christian  apologetic.  In  fact  he  has 
been  claimed  by  some  to  have  been  a  Christian.3  His  great  work, 
The  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  is  professedly  apologetic,  as  he  acknowledges 
in  the  opening  paragraph  of  his  polemic  Against  Apion,  which  was  exten¬ 
sively  drawn  upon  by  Christian  apologists.  His  own  Life  is  unmistak¬ 
ably  apologetic  in  tone  and  quite  appropriately  might  have  been  entitled 
“Apologia  pro  vita  sua  et  suae  gentis.”  His  Wars  of  the  Jews  also  is 
apologetic,  inasmuch  as  it  tries  to  place  the  responsibility  for  that  war 
where  it  properly  belonged  and  to  demonstrate  the  courage  and  other 
virtues  of  the  Jews,  if  not  indeed  to  maintain  that  Vespasian  was  the 
fulfilment  of  the  messianic  prophecies. 

1  Paul  Wendland,  op .  cit.;  cf.  Friedlaender,  Gesch.jued.  Apol.,  pp.  230,  248,  262; 
“Therapeutae,”  pp.  695  f. 

2  Bousset,  Juedisch-christlicher  Sckultrieb  in  Alexandria  und  Rom,  1915. 

3  See  Krueger,  p.  2. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETIC 


55 


From  here  it  was  an  easy  step,  if  indeed  it  was  any  step  at  all,  and 
not  rather  a  continuation  of  Jewish  apologetic,  for  the  Christians  to 
take  up  the  defense  of  the  new  religion.1  And  it  was  but  to  be  expected 
that  the  first  Christian  apologetic  should  be  the  product  of  that 
Alexandrine  Jewish-Hellenistic  tradition  which  had  become  the 
Christian  Heritage. 

While,  therefore,  we  find  reason  for  the  appearance  of  the  apologies 
of  Quadra tus2  and  Aristides3  and  Justin4  in  the  persecution  which  seems 
to  have  broken  out  in  Asia  Minor  and  Greece  in  the  second  century,5 
we  need  no  such  event  to  account  for  the  beginning  of  apologetic  at 
Alexandria,  even  though  evidence  of  the  outbreak  of  persecution  there 
were  lacking,6  where  the  Jews  were  in  such  numbers,  whom  the  Christian 

1  Geffcken,  Zwei  gr.  Apol.,  Introduction,  passim. 

2  Little  is  known  of  Quadratus.  Eusebius  ( Chron .  ad  a.  Abr.  2140;  H.E.  4.  4) 
says  he  was  a  disciple  of  the  apostles,  gifted  with  prophecy  (cf.  Zahn,  For.,  G.N.T.K. , 
VI  [1900],  41  ff.),  who  (apparently  in  Asia  Minor)  addressed  an  apology  for  Christianity 
to  the  Emperor  Hadrian,  presumably  on  one  of  his  visits  to  Asia  Minor  in  the  year 
124  or  129.  Only  a  brief  fragment  of  the  apology  is  extant  (Goodspeed,  A. A.,  p.  1) 
complaining  that  the  Christians  are  calumniated  by  wicked  men,  and  maintaining  in 
proof  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  that  some  of  those  who  saw  him  risen  lived  even 
to  the  writer’s  day  (cf.  Bardenhewer,  G.A.L.,  I,  168  f.). 

3  Of  Aristides,  a  philosopher  of  Athens,  who  according  to  Eusebius  {Chron.  ad.  a. 
Abr.  2140;  H.E.  4.4)  addressed  an  apology  for  Christianity  to  the  Emperor  Hadrian, 
little  more  was  known  than  of  Quadratus  till  the  Syriac  version  of  his  Apology  was 
found  in  1889,  and  by  means  of  this  the  Greek  was  at  least  in  great  part  recognized 
in  the  Barlaam  and  Joasaph  romance,  cc.  26-27.  An  excellent  reconstructed  edition 
of  all  that  is  left  of  Aristides’  Apology  will  be  found  in  Goodspeed’s  A. A.,  pp.  3  f. 
Cf.  Bardenhewer,  G.A.G.,  I,  1 71,  and  the  literature  there  given;  also  Geffcken,  Zwei 
gr.  Apol.,  op.  cit. 

4  Justin  Martyr,  from  Flavia  Neopolis,  had  been  studying  the  philosophy  of 
various  schools  when  he  became  a  Christian,  probably  about  the  time  of  the  Jewish 
war,  and  shortly  after  wrote  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew  (132-35).  He  continued 
wearing  his  philosopher’s  mantle  and  teaching  philosophy  in  Rome,  where  he  was 
martyred  about  the  year  163  or  167.  His  great  apology  is  addressed  to  Antoninus 
Pius  (138-61).  In  chap.  46  he  says,  “Christ  was  born  150  years  ago.”  To  this  he 
wrote  a  shorter  apology  or  appendix.  The  text  is  given  in  Goodspeed,  A. A.,  pp. 
26-265.  For  literature  see  Bard.,  G.A.L.,  I,  190  f. 

s  Eusebius  {H.E.  4.  26,  5-1 1;  Goodspeed,  A. A.,  p.  309)  quotes  from  the  Apology 
of  Melito  from  Sardis,  reminding  Marcus  Aurelius  that  Hadrian  had  put  a  stop  to 
Christian  persecution  in  Asia  Minor  and  in  Larissa,  Thessalonica,  Athens,  and  other 
cities  of  Greece. 

6  Next  to  nothing  is  knowij  about  Christianity  in  Egypt  till  late  in  the  second 
century,  nor  is  there  any  historic  ground  for  supposing  Christian  apologetic  to  have 
been  provoked  in  Egypt  by  violent  opposition.  The  much  disputed  Disputatio 


56 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


apologists  assert  to  have  been  everywhere  the  instigators  of  persecution 
against  Christians,  as  they  appear  in  Acts  and  the  Martyrdom  of 
Polycarp.  It  was  not  surprising,  therefore,  since  Christianity  was  under 
the  same  charges  as  Judaism  of  atheism,  misanthropy,  immorality, 
murder,  that  these  four  “  accusations  ”  (enklemata)  were  the  ones  the 
Christian  apologists  most  commonly  essayed  to  refute,  and  in  their 
refutation  insisted  first  of  all  upon  the  Christian  worship  of  one  God, 
invisible,  and,  with  all  the  other  attributes  Christians  had  learned  from 
Jews  and  Greeks.  Indeed  it  is  surprising — or  is  it? — that  we  find  so 
little  in  early  Christian  apologetic  that  is  really  new! 

We  should  not,  then,  be  surprised  to  find  that  the  “  Beginnings  of 
Christian  Apologetic”  are  the  continuation  of  Jewish  and  Greek,  follow¬ 
ing  and  recording  the  beginnings  of  Christianity  in  its  rapid  assimilation 
and  renovation  of  all  the  age  was  demanding  for  its  new  religion,  leaving 
it  to  the  theologians  of  the  third  and  following  centuries  to  systematize 
this  vast  amalgamation  of  multifarious  elements  into  a  harmonious 
whole,  as  the  great  churchmen  were  set  the  task  of  organizing  and 
unifying  the  hordes  of  converted  pagans  into  the  Catholic  church. 

The  Christianity  the  apologists  thus  essayed  to  defend,  and  defending 
to  propagate,  was  not  yet  the  harmonious  teaching  and  smoothly  working 
institution  of  later  centuries.  They  had  to  fix  upon  some  conventionally 
recognized  representative  of  their  common  beliefs  and  practices,  some 
accepted  traditional  channel  of  the  doctrine  and  authority  they  held. 
What  tradition  would  be  more  likely  to  commend  itself  than  the  Petrine  ? 
and  what  center  more  suitable  than  Rome,  where  that  Petrine  tradition 
had  taken  firm  root  ?  It  is  not,  therefore,  wonderful  that  the  first  apology 
for  Christianity  should  appear  as  “The  Preaching  of  Peter,”  stating  the 
doctrines  which  “the  twelve  disciples,”  “faithful  apostles,”  were 
commissioned  to  teach  “the  world.” 

The  difference,  then,  between  apologetic  proper  and  the  books  of 
the  canonical  New  Testament  is  not  necessarily  one  of  time;  though, 
of  course,  inasmuch  as  the  canonical  books  represent  rather  the  genesis 
of  Christianity  than  its  defense,  the  genesis  had  naturally  to  precede 
the  defense;  still  the  genesis  is  really  never  ending,  and  there  may  have 
been  call  for  defense  in  the  earliest  days  of  Christianity’s  genetic  develop- 

Jasonis  Hebraei  Christiani  et  Papisci  Alexandrini  Judaei,  cited  by  Celsus  (Origen 
Contra  Celsum  4.  51),  attributed  to  Ariston  of  Pella  by  Maximus  Confessor  ( Scholi 
in  Dion.  Areop.  De  myst.  theol.  1.  3;  M.P.G.  4.  4.  21),  was  probably,  like  Justin’s 
Dialogue  with  the  Jew  Trypho ,  a  fictitious  discussion  which  had  no  historic  connection 
with  Alexandria. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETIC 


57 


ment.  Moreover,  the  New  Testament  books,  as  they  now  appear,  are 
probably  not  all  in  their  original  form,  and  a  primitive  apology,  such 
as  the  K.P.  seems  to  be,  might  have  been  written  before  such  a  theological 
treatment  of  Christianity  as,  for  instance,  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Again, 
as  apologetic  need  not,  and  really  never  does,  confine  its  attention  to 
defense,  but  also  instructs  and  even  advances  the  constructive  evolution 
of  the  religion  it  is  defending — witness  for  instance  the  constructive 
evolution  of  theology,  the  idea  of  God,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  dogmatic 
expression  of  belief,  in  second-century  apologetic — so  also  such  genetic 
literature  as  the  New  Testament  books  need  not,  and  certainly  do  not, 
exclude  apologetic  elements.  After  all,  it  is  really  a  matter  of  relative  pre¬ 
ponderance  of  apologetic  or  genetic  elements  that  characterize  and  classify 
the  treatise,  and  this  dominant  element  is  discerned  primarily  in  the  appeal 
to  its  audience;  the  apologetic  designating  its  audience  as,  in  some 
measure  at  least,  opposed  to  the  subject-matter,  which  is  therefore  to 
be  defended,  not  simply  stated  or  explained  or  amplified.  The  test, 
therefore,  to  be  applied  to  determine  whether  a  given  treatise  is  of 
apologetic  or  genetic  character  is,  What  is  the  attitude  of  the  audience 
to  which  it  appeals  ? 

Applying  this  test  to  the  New  Testament  books,  we  cannot  mistake 
their  character  as  genetic  treatises  on  Christianity  addressed  to  an 
audience  already  in  sympathy  with  the  subject-matter.  And  yet  it 
must  be  admitted  that,  even  though  addressed  to  those  who  are  already 
Christians,  the  New  Testament,  as  has  ever  been  recognized,  is  perhaps 
the  most  efficient  apologetic.  This  additional  effectiveness,  however, 
does  not  change  the  primary  character  of  the  genetic  treatise.  Consider¬ 
ing  the  developmental  character  of  Christianity,  we  might  even  go  so 
far  as  to  maintain  that  a  treatise  on  Christianity  would  not  be  genetic, 
or  have  any  right  to  exist  at  all,  did  it  entirely  exclude  the  apologetic 
element.  Surely  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  addressed  to  Christian  readers, 
and  appreciation  of  that  Gospel’s  depth  and  beauty  and  value  increases 
with  Christian  experience.  Yet,  how  clear  the  tone  of  apology  sounds 
in  it!  What  an  irresistible  appeal  it  must  have  made  to  the  Greek  who 
was  “of  God”!  It  implies  that  a  demand  was  felt  in  certain  Christian 
circles  for  a  restatement  of  what  Jesus  meant  to  the  believer,  a  restate¬ 
ment  in  the  thought  and  language  and  tone  of  a  Christian  community 
which  the  demonology  of  Mark  and  the  prophetic  appeal  of  Matthew  no 
longer  fully  satisfied.  The  presupposition  is  granted  that  Jesus  is  God. 
But  what  does  this  mean  in  the  language  of  the  Greek  who  thinks  in 
terms  of  the  Logos  ?  “To  recast  Christian  thinking,  anxious  to  conserve 


58 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


whatever  was  distinctive  and  essential  in  it,”  was,  as  Scott  expresses 
it,  “the  purpose  and  theology”  of  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 

(P-  355)- 

He  goes  back  to  the  facts  of  gospel  history,  and  seeks  to  present  them  to 
his  contemporaries  as  the  eternal  basis  of  their  faith.  The  reconstruction  of 
doctrine  is  everywhere  subsidiary  to  this  practical  purpose  of  affirming  once 
for  all  the  supreme  value  of  the  historical  revelation  in  Jesus  ....  Jesus 
was  the  Word,  the  final  and  absolute  revelation  of  God  to  men.  But  His 

t 

earthly  appearance,  instead  of  exhausting  the  revelation,  was  only  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  it  [p.  375]. 

He  is  not  unmindful  of  the  problems  that  may  be  in  his  reader’s  mind, 
and  he  takes  cognizance  of  the  errors  that  are  rife  in  his  environment. 
He  becomes  the  apologist  for  the  moment,  but  only  because  his  reader 
for  the  moment  is  viewed  as  his  possible  opponent.  He  even  views 
himself  as  his  opponent,  as  Justin,  the  great  apologist,  enters  into  debate 
with  himself  while  ostensibly  'refuting  Trypho’s  supposed  objection 
that  Christians  are  making  of  Jesus  “another  god,”  and  the  apologist 
has  to  pause  to  regain  his  grip  on  himself  before  he  can  proceed  to  attack 
his  adversary. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  too,  is  to  such  an  extent  apologetic  that 
one  might  reasonably  suppose  the  “most  excellent  Theophilus”  to  be 
a  heathen  whom  the  writer  was  trying  to  convert,  but  for  the  reference 
to  “  the  former  treatise,  ”  written  that  Theophilus  “  might  know  the  truth 
of  those  things  in  which  he  had  been  catechized”  (L.  1:4). 

In  spite,  therefore,  of  the  abundant  apologetic  material  in  the 
New  Testament  books,  they  are  quite  evidently  addressed  to  Christian 
readers,  and  so  not  properly  apologies.  Similarly,  in  spite  of  the 
catechetical  (if  so  it  may  be  called)  element  in  such  treatises  as  Justin’s 
Dialogue  with  Trypho  or  Athenagoras’  Supplication  for  the  Christians , 
these  are  plainly  apologetic. 

Applying  the  test  of  audience  to  the  K.P.,  we  cannot  mistake  its 
character.  Fragmentary  as  it  lies  before  us,  it  nevertheless  unmistak¬ 
ably  appeals  to  those  who  are  uncertain  whether  there  be  one  God,  or 
of  what  nature  he  is;  whether  they  should  worship  him  as  do  the  Jews; 
whether  it  is  right  to  worship  idols  and  animals  and  offer  them  sacrifice; 
whether  there  is  any  proof  for  the  Christians’  claim  that  they  alone 
worship  God  aright;  and  who  and  what  is  Christ.  The  work  is  plainly 
of  primitive  character,  and  the  writer  considers  his  audience  at  least 
willing  hearers.  He  even  seems  to  take  it  for  granted  that  they  are 
listening  to  and  accepting  his  words,  “holily  and  justly  learning  what  he 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETIC 


59 


has  delivered  to  them,”  and  are  waiting  to  be  told  what  to  do  “to  be 
saved.”  He  is  not  remonstrating  with  the  heathen,  as,  for  instance, 
Tatian  is,  inviting  defeat  by  abusive  harshness.  Nor  is  he  pleading  with 
unjust  persecutors,  as  is  Justin  in  his  Apology  to  the  Emperor.  His 
audience,  we  should  surmise,  is  one  in  which  Jews  and  Egyptian  Hellen¬ 
ists,  not  entirely  unacquainted  with  Christianity,  listen  reasonably  to 
his  appeal,  yet  demand  proof  of  what  he  says,  proof  especially  from 
those  sacred  Scriptures  they  have  already  learned  to  revere  and  trust. 


IV 

COMMENTARY  ON  THE  FRAGMENTS 


i.  Name. — The  word  kerygma  is  common  throughout  the  range  of 
Greek  literature,  from  Herodotus  (3.  52;  5.  92;  6.  78,  etc.)  to  the 
present,  meaning  “that  which  is  cried  by  a  herald  or  crier,”  “a  proc¬ 
lamation,”  “public  notice”  (Liddell-Scott,  Gk.-Eng.  Lex.)',  “preach¬ 
ing,  particularly  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel’ ’  (Sophocles,  Gr.-Eng.  Lex., 
Roman  and  Byzantine  Periods),  in  which  meaning  it  occurs  frequently 
in  the  New  Testament  (I  Cor.  1:21;  2:4;  15:14;  Rom.  16:25;  Mk. 
12:4;  L.  11:32;  Jo.  3:4;  II  Tim.  4:17;  Tit.  1:3,  Grimm)  and  in 
Christian  literature  generally.  It  derives  from  the  verb  keryssein, 
“to  be,  officiate  as,  a  herald”;  “to  proclaim”;  “to  preach.”  Cognate 
words  are:  kerygmos,  keryxis,  the  act  of  proclaiming  or  preaching; 
kerykeia,  the  office  of  a  herald  or  preacher,  etc.  The  root  word  is  keryx, 
“a  herald,”  “public  messenger,”  “ambassador”  (Lat.  praeco,  legatus), 
frequent  in  Homer.  “From  the  heroic  times  their  office  was  sacred 
and  their  persons  inviolable,  as  being  under  the  immediate  protection 
of  Jupiter”  (L.-S.).  Hermes  was  the  keryx  of  the  gods.  Cf.  I  Clem. 
5 : 6,  applied  to  Paul.  In  our  fragments  kerygma  plainly  means  “  Preach¬ 
ing”  in  the  sense  of  that  which  is  preached,  like  the  Italian  predica. 
Hence  it  was  easily  confused  with  “teaching,”  that  which  is  taught, 
didaskalia,  and  translated  into  Latin  doctrina  as  well  as  praedicatio. 

The  name  “Peter.”  “In  the  early  part  of  the  second  century,” 
says  Professor  Goodspeed,1  “various  books  were  written  in  Christian 
circles  about  the  Apostle,  or  even  in  his  name,  until  one  could  have 
collected  a  whole  New  Testament  bearing  his  name.  There  were  a 
Gospel  of  Peter,  Acts  of  Peter,  the  Teaching  of  Peter,  the  Preaching  of 
Peter,  the  Epistles  of  Peter,  and  the  Revelation  of  Peter.  Most  of  these 
laid  claim  to  being  from  the  pen  of  Peter  himself.” 

The  writer  of  the  kerygma  says  (IX):  “We,  opening  the  books  we 
have  of  the  Prophets,”  etc.,  and  Clement  says  he  is  speaking  of  the 
apostles.  Does  it  necessarily  follow  from  this  that  the  writer  claimed 
to  be  Peter  the  Apostle?  Elsewhere  (VI),  the  writer  seems  to  imply 
plainly  enough  that  he  is  not  one  of  “the  apostles”  to  whom  Jesus  said, 
“  I  have  chosen  you  twelve,  ”  etc.  The  writer  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

1  The  Story  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  134. 

60 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  FRAGMENTS 


61 


says  (6:2):  “It  is  not  fitting  that  we,”  etc.,  merely  quoting  Peter  in 
the  first  person,  without  at  all  pretending  that  the  writer  is  Peter! 
Origen  (Horn.  X  in  Lev.)  refers  to  “a  certain  little  book  Ab  apostolis 
dictum ,”  and  ( De  princ.  praef.  8),  probably  referring  to  the  same  “little 
book,”  says:  “First  it  is  to  be  answered  that  that  little  book  is  not 
numbered  among  ecclesiastical  (canonical  ?)  books,  and  it  is  to  be  shown 
that  neither  is  it  a  writing  of  Peter,  nor  of  anyone  else  who  was  inspired 
by  the  spirit  of  God.”  Does  he  mean  that  Origen  intends  “to  show” 
this?  He  wrote  these  works  before  218  a.d.  (Harnack,  Chronale ,  II 
[1904],  30  f.).  But  he  is  still  promising,  when  he  wrote  book  xiii  of  his 
commentary  on  John,  “to  make  a  careful  investigation  also  concerning 
that  little  book,  whether  it  be  genuine  or  spurious  or  mixt.”  He  is 
apparently  no  better  informed  than  he  was  years  before,  though  he 
knows  Heracleon’s  quotation  of  the  K.P.  is  “often  repeated,”  and 
himself  repeats  it  in  a  rather  negligent  way.  His  quotation  (or  quota¬ 
tions  ?)  is  second  hand.  Why  did  he  not  quote  directly  ?  Why  did  he 
defer  his  promised  investigation?  Had  he  the  K.P.  at  all?  Had  he 
ever  seen  it?  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  whether  Origen  really 
knew  anything  about  the  K.P.  more  than  what  he  had  read  in  Clement 
and  heard  of  Heracleon  and  others!  If  our  only  reason  for  thinking  the 
K.P.  writer  wished  to  pose  as  the  apostle  Peter  is  Clement’s  manner  of 
introducing  his  words  and  Origen’s  second-hand  hearsay  hasty  remarks, 
it  were  better  to  leave  the  question  open.  Had  the  writer  wished  to 
pretend  to  be  Peter  the  Apostle,  he  would  not  likely  have  written  of  the 
apostles  in  the  third  person.  This  is  not  the  fashion  of  the  other  plainly 
pretentious  works  of  “Peter.” 

The  Gospel  of  Peter  (e.g.,  14:59)  says:  “We,  the  twelve  disciples,” 
and  (60):  “I,  Simon  Peter,  and  Andrew  my  Brother.”  And  I  Peter, 
even  if  the  pretentious  preamble  be  considered  a  later  addition,  quite 
plainly  implies  that  the  writer  claims  to  be  Peter,  writing  from  Rome 
(“Babylon”),  and  sending  greetings  of  “his  son  Mark”  (5: 13) — unless, 
indeed,  5: 12-14  also  be  a  later  addition:  5:11  being  a  very  appropriate 
ending.  Also  II  Peter,  apart  from  the  preamble,  implies  that  the  writer 
claims  to  be  one  of  those  who  were  with  Jesus  at  the  Transfiguration 
(1:17-18;  cf.  Mt.  17:5);  who  is  soon  to  die,  as  “the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
had  foretold”  (1:14;  cf.  Jo.  21:18-19);  and  promises  to  provide  that 
they  will  have  after  his  death  a  record  ( mnemen )  of  these  things  (1 : 15), 
presumably  some  such  record  as  the  Acts  of  Peter.  The  writer  of  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter  does  not  give  his  name  in  any  of  the  extant  frag¬ 
ments,  though  he  speaks  as  one  of  Jesus’  disciples:  “And  we  were 


62 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


praying”  (c.  3);  “  and  I  came  near  to  the  Lord  and  said  to  him  .  .  .  . 
and  he  said  to  me”  (c.  4).  Yet  according  to  Clement:  “Peter,  in  the 
Apocalypse,  says,”  etc.  {Eel.  Proph.  48, 49).  Had  Clement  better  reason 
than  we  for  attributing  the  Apocalypse  to  Peter  ? 

It  is  not,  of  course,  necessary  that  a  writer  give  his  name.  Anony¬ 
mous  writing  was  very  common  at  this  time.  Nor  do  we,  as  a  rule,  find 
a  writer  giving  his  name  without  reason.  Such  anxious  insistence 
upon  recognition  as  that,  for  instance,  which  the  writer  of  the  Gospel 
of  Peter,  betrays,  is  suspicious;  it  makes  one  feel  uneasy,  lest  the  writer 
be  not  really  who  he  pretends  to  be.  Might  it  not  be  that  Clement 
speaks  of  “  Peter  saying  in  the  Kerygma,  ”  as  we  might  speak  of  “  Homer 
saying  in  the  Odyssey ,  ”  though  we  are  well  aware  the  writer  nowhere 
reveals  his  identity,  and  we  may  feel  very  certain  that  Homer  never 
said  any  such  thing?  Justin  {Dial.  106.  3),  after  mentioning  Peter, 
says:  “And  it  is  written  in  his  memoirs”  (apparently  meaning  Mk. 
3:16-17).  Might  it  not  be  that  the  writer  of  the  K.P.  no  more  wished 
to  pass  for  Peter  than  the  writer  of  the  Apology  of  Socrates  wished  to 
pass  for  Socrates  ?  Without  venturing  to  solve  the  problem,  the  present 
writer  would  suggest  the  opinion  that  the  Kerygma  was  first  in  current 
circulation  as  a  faithful  representation  of  that  preaching  for  which 
the  apostolic  source  was  Peter,  just  as  what  was  later  known  as  the 
Gospel  of  Mark  was  first  in  circulation  as  a  faithful  representation  of  the 
gospel  of  Jesus,  for  which  the  apostolic  source  was  Peter,  and  was  referred 
to  by  Justin  as  such.  Later  the  title  “The  Gospel  according  to  Mark” 
was  affixed  to  it.  Similarly,  “the  Preaching  of  Peter”  was  affixed  to 
the  Kerygma. 

2.  Relation  of  the  K.P.  to  the  other  writings  of  Peter. — It  has  been 
shown  that  there  is  some  similarity  and  generally  admitted  relation 
between  the  K.P.  and  the  five  old  writings  known  as  the  Gospel  of  Peter, 
the  Acts  of  Peter,  the  First  and  Second  Epistles  of  Peter,  and  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter.  It  should  be  remarked  that  in  their  present  form, 
which,  at  least  in  the  case  of  Acts  of  Peter,  is  certainly  not  the  original, 
the  date  of  origin  is  difficult  to  determine  with  anything  like  certainty. 
Approximately  the  Apocalypse  may  be  dated,  say,  120  a.d.;  the  Gospel 
before  200  a.d.  ;  the  Acts  about  200  a.d.  ;  the  First  Epistle  in  DNomitian’s 
reign  (81-96  a.d.);  the  Second  Epistle  about  the  same  time  as  the  first 
appearance  of  the  Acts  of  Peter  (cf.  II  Pet.  1:15),  or  some  new  edition 
of  those  Acts.  But  these  dates  are  merely  “approximations”  of  a  very 
loose  kind.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  to  determine 
its  date  narrowly.  It  might  have  been  written  toward  the  end  of  the 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  FRAGMENTS 


63 


first  century.  It  has  already  been  remarked  that  portions  of  the  Gospel 
of  Peter  (e.g.,  1:1;  11:45-46,  compared  with  Mt.  27:24,  54)  impress 
one  as  primitive.  However,  since  the  earliest  definite  evidence  extant 
of  the  existence  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter  is  what  Eusebius  relates  ( H.E . 
6.  12,  3-6):  that  Serapion  of  Antioch  (ca.  200  a.d.)  found  on  one  of 
his  episcopal  visitations  among  the  Christian  community  at  Rhossus 
“a  Gospel  under  the  name  of  Peter,”  and  objected  to  its  reading;  and 
later  found  the  same  Gospel  among  a  “Docetic”  community  of  Antioch 
(and  it  does  contain  expressions  apparently  Docetic);  there  is  not 
sufficient  proof  to  date  it  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  second  century.1 
The  Muratorian  Fragment,2  generally  dated  about  200  a.d.,  says  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter  was  received,  though  some  did  not  wish  to  have  it 
read  in  church.  The  M.F.  reference  to  the  Acts,  mentioning  the  martyr¬ 
dom  of  Peter  and  Paul’s  journey  to  Spain,  may  mean  the  “Actus  Petri 
c.  Sim.”  (VI)  in  which  these  events  are  related,  but  not  in  the  Lucan 
Acts.3  The  First  Epistle  of  Peter  was  probably  written  in  Domitian’s 
reign,  and  its  style  is  so  much  like  that  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Hebrews, 
the  most  elegant  in  the  New  Testament,  and  of  the  First  Epistle  of 
Clement  to  the  Corinthians,  that  it  has  been  plausibly  maintained  that 
they  are  from  the  same  author.4  The  prominent  individuality  of  the 
writer,  and  of  what  type  he  was,  can  best  be  observed  by  a  careful 
reading  of  the  Epistle,  and  an  analysis  of  its  thought  and  language,  its 
purpose,  destination,  and  provenence.  Origen  (Euseb.  H.E.  vi.  14.  1-4) 
comments  at  some  length  on  the  style  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
and  says:  “The  tradition  has  come  down  to  us  that  Clement  the  Bishop 
of  the  Romans  wrote  the  Epistle.”  Jacquier  (I,  482)  concludes: 

Du  texte  m6me  de  l’epitre  et  des  etudes  que  nous  venons  de  faire  sur 
l’histoire,  la  langue  et  les  doctrines  de  l’epitre  aux  Hebreux  nous  degagerons 
les  caracteres  suivants.  L’ecrivan  de  l’epitre  etait  Juif  [his  reason  for  this 
seems  to  be  the  writer’s  familiarity  with  the  LXX!],  cretien,  de  la  generation 
sub-apostolique,  et  connaissait  bien  les  saintes  Ecritures;  il  etait  disciple  de 
saint  Paul  et  avait  lu  attentivement  les  epitres  pauliennes;  peut-etre  meme 
avait-il  regu  directement  les  enseignments  de  Papotre.  II  connaissait  peut- 
etre  le  troisieme  evangile,  les  Actes  des  Apotres  et  la  premiere  epitre  de  saint 

1  Cf.  C.  Schmidt,  T.U. ,  XXIV,  1. 

2  Zahn,  G.N.T.K.2  (1890),  pp.  5  f.  Jacquier,  Le  Nouveau  Testament  dans  V eglise 
(Paris,  1911),  I,  189  f. 

3  Jacquier,  Histoire  des  livres  du  Nouveau  Testament,  III3,  246-79;  I8  (1908),  448, 
45i,  485. 

4  Jacquier,  III,  281;  Harnack,  G.A.L.  Chron.,  I  (1897),  463. 


64 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


Pierre  [his  reason  for  this  is  the  striking  similarity  of  the  two  epistles,  priority 
being  conceded  to  the  first  Peter  on  account  of  its  name].  Pour  les  ecrits  de 
Philon,  c’est  plus  douteux;  cependent  il  a  subi  les  memes  influences  que  lui  et 
son  education  a  ete  plutot  alexandrine  que  palestinienne. 

This  description  would  fit  the  author  of  I  Peter  quite  as  well.  Of  the 
two  epistles  Jacquier  says  (III,  280):  “Bien  qu’on  puisse  supposer  que 
la  meme  langue  chretienne  etait  cummune  aux  deux  ewivains,  les  ressem- 
blances  sont  trop  nombreuses  pour  qu’on  ne  soit  pas  oblige  d’admettre 
que  saint  Clement  s’est  inspire  de  la  premiere  epitre  de  saint  Pierre.” 

It  would  take  us  too  far  away  from  our  theme  to  pursue  this  com¬ 
parison  of  I  Peter,  Hebrews,  and  I  Clement,  but  a  reading  of  the  three 
epistles  will  reveal  such  striking  resemblances  in  thought,  language, 
and  purpose  that  we  are  tempted  to  think  that  if  they  had  not  the  same 
author,  their  authors  were  in  familiar  intercourse.  The  language, 
especially  of  I  Peter  and  I  Clement,  is  so  teasingly  similar,  yet  not  iden¬ 
tical,  the  thought  and  purpose  so  identical,  yet  slightly  different  in  expres¬ 
sion,  that  different  authors  could  hardly  have  known  each  other’s 
minds  so  perfectly  and  have  expressed  each  other’s  thought  so  precisely 
without  copying  the  identical  words.  Compare  Heb.  13:7,  17,  24, 
with  I  Pet.  5:15,  and  I  Clem.  1:3;  63:3;  the  oft  recurring  doxology: 
I  Pet.  4:11;  5:11;  I  Clem.  13:21;  64,  end;  65:2;  Heb.  13:21;  the 
church  and  hierarchy,  authority  and  discipline,  centering  in  Rome, 
where  Peter  planted  the  faith  with  his  blood:  Heb.,  5:12  f . ;  I  Pet. 
5:13;  I  Clem.  1:1;  5:3-7;  44:2-4.  Obviously  some  great  churchman 
is  coaxing  on  the  Roman  community,  reminding  it  that  it  has  “to  be 
taught,”  when  it  “ought  to  be  teaching  others”  (Heb.  5:12);  and  in 
the  same  style  and  tone  the  response  comes  (I  Pet.  1:1)  “to  the  elect 
(churches)  of  the  dispersion”  from  “their  coelect  church  in  Babylon” 
(Rome,  I  Pet.  5:9):  “to  honor  all  men,  to  love  the  brotherhood,  to  fear 
God,  to  honor  the  king”  (I  Pet.  2:17).  Read  in  the  echo  of  the 
Ephesian  prophet’s  ravings  against  the  “Beast”  and  “the  Harlot  of 
Babylon,”  these  words  have  a  telling  significance.  “In  fine,”  it  pleads 
with  them  to  be  “all  of  one  mind,  sympathetic,  fraternal,  kind,  modest, 
humble;  not  rendering  evil  for  evil,  nor  curse  for  curse,  but  rather 
blessing,  for  to  this  they  are  called,  to  inherit  a  blessing”  (3:9);  that  if 
“doing  good  they  suffer  patiently,  it  will  be  pleasing  to  God:  for  to 
this  they  are  called;  for  Christ  suffered  for  us,  leaving  them  an  example 
to  follow,  who  committed  no  sin,  in  whose  mouth  no  guile  was  found; 
who  when  cursed  did  not  curse  back,  when  he  suffered  he  did  not  threaten, 
but  surrendered  himself  to  the  one  who  judged  him  according  to  law 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  FRAGMENTS 


65 


(1 dikaids )”  (2:21-24).  It  is  “the  Church  of  God  resident  at  Rome” 
(I  Clem.  1:1),  following  “the  good  apostles,”  Peter  and  Paul  (5:3-6), 
reprimanding  the  other  churches  for  disorderliness  or  impatience  under 
trial,  mellowing  the  rebuke  out  of  consideration  for  the  afflicted,  yet 
speaking  with  no  uncertain  meaning  and  authority,  authority  based, 
then  as  ever  since,  upon  the  Roman  bishop’s  succession  to  Peter,  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles. 

The  very  title  of  I  Peter  is  significant,  though  not  much  weight 
can  be  rested  on  it,  for  Polycarp  certainly  knew  the  epistle  (cf.  Pol. 

1.  3  with  I  Pet.  1:8;  Pol.  1.  3:  I  Pet.  1:12;  Pol.  2.  13.  21;  5.  3:  I  Pet. 

2.  n),  and  quoted  it  six  times  without  name.  The  writer,  however,  as 
the  epistle  now  reads,  with  the  introduction  and  conclusion,  plainly 
pretends  to  be  St.  Peter,  the  apostle,  in  precisely  the  same  way  that  the 
author  of  II  Peter  does.  Compare  the  reference  in  I  Peter  (5:14)  to 
“my  son  Mark,”  with  the  reference  in  II  Peter  (3:15)  to  “our  dearest 
brother  Paul.”  The  absence  in  Hebrews  and  I  Clement  of  such  attempts 
to  identify  the  author  would  alone  make  them  suspicious  in  I  Peter. 
Could  they  have  escaped  Polycarp  had  they  been  in  the  copies  he  used  ? 
It  would  seem  reasonable,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  the  name  of  Peter 
attached  itself  to  this  Epistle  some  time  between  Polycarp’s  writing  to 
the  Philippians  in  Trajan’s  time  ( ca .  no?)  and  the  writing  of  II  Peter, 
which  could  not  have  been  much  before  200  a.d.,  and  probably,  since 
it  is  not  mentioned,  after  the  Muratorian  Canon  (200  a.d.). 

This  II  Peter  is  the  one  Petrine  writing  that  has  unconcealably  an 
axe  to  grind.  The  writer  is  painfully  anxious  to  be  identified  with  him 
to  whom  the  Lord  Jesus  foretold  his  death,  and  he  is  certain  that  his 
death  is  near,  and  he  is  in  haste  to  make  sure  that  they  will  have  a 
record  of  his  death  (II  Pet.  1:14-15).  He  is  going  to  begin  right  away 
to  admonish  them  (1:12).  He  reminds  them  he  has  not  followed 
“learned  fables,”  but  “the  power  (< dynamis )  and  manifestation  ( parou - 
sian)  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  having  been  an  initiate  ( epoptai )  of  his 
greatness  (1:16-18),  in  the  Transfiguration.”  “And  we  have  this  very 
firm  prophetic  treatise  ( propheticon  logon  [the  Apocalypse  of  Peter?]),  to 
which  you  would  do  well  to  attend,  as  to  a  torch  lighting  your  way 
through  a  dark  place,  until  the  day  dawns,  and  the  morning  star  rises 
in  your  hearts;  understanding  this  first  of  all  that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture 
comes  by  private  interpretation.  For  prophecy  was  never  given  at 
human  demand  but  holy  men  of  God  spoke  inspired  of  the  Holy  Spirit” 
(1 : 19-21).  How  anxious  he  is  that  they  accept  “  this  prophetic  treatise  ” 
which  he  is  recommending  as  the  inspired  word  of  God!  Then  he  goes 


66 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


on  to  warn  them  against  false  prophets,  takes  a  generous  piece  out  of  the 
Epistle  of  Jude,  rather  harshly  stigmatizes  certain  heretics,  and  continues 
(3:1  ff.):  “  Behold  this  second  Epistle  I  write  to  you.”  He  wants  to  be 
sure  they  identify  him  with  the  writer  of  I  Peter.  Evidently,  then, 
there  is  already  an  epistle  current  under  the  name  of  Peter.  Note  the 
implied  time  in  3:4:  “Where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming?  Since 
the  fathers  died ,  everything  goes  on  as  from  the  beginning  of  creation.” 
He  seems  to  refer  to  some  writing  in  3:1-2;  and  indicates  that  the 
purpose  of  this  second  epistle  is  “that  I  may  arouse  your  sincere  mind; 
that  you  may  be  mindful  of  the  words  I  have  already  spoken  ( proeire - 
menon  rhematon )  from  the  holy  Prophets  and  your  Apostles’  command 
from  the  Lord  and  Savior.”  This  reference  to  “word  from  the  Prophets” 
and  “the  Lord’s  command  of  the  Apostles”  would  quite  well  apply  to 
the  Preaching  of  Peter. 

The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter1  is  too  well  acquainted  with  “all  the 
Epistles  of  Paul”  (3:16)  and  other  Christian  literature  to  be  very  early, 
and  its  introduction  of  the  “Acts  of  Peter,”  if  that  is  what  is  meant  by 
“the  record  of  his  death,”  would  indicate  about  the  year  200  a.d.  as 
the  date  of  writing. 

From  the  foregoing  discussion  it  seems  that  the  basis  of  the  recognized 
relation  between  these  old  Petrine  writings  is  the  Petrine  tradition  of 
the  Roman  church;  that  this  tradition  lay  behind  the  three  great  epistles 
of  the  late  first  century — Hebrews,  I  Peter,  and  I  Clement;  that  it 
gave  authority  and  recommendation  to  the  Preaching  of  Peter;  that  it 
gave  the  occasion  for  or  at  least  embodied  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter 
early  in  the  second  century;  that  it  was  invoked  late  in  the  second 
century  by  the  Docetic  Gospel  of  Peter;  that  it  was  often  recast  in  the 
ramifications  of  the  Acts  of  Peter;  that  the  promulgation  of  one  edition 
of  these  Acts  was  the  occasion  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  about  the 
end  of  the  second  century,  which  ingeniously  combines  all  these  writings 
to  commend  itself  and  the  Acts  it  is  promulgating;  that  the  First  Epistle 
of  Peter  was,  like  Hebrews  and  I  Clement,  anonymously  written,  but 
got  the  name  of  Peter  attached  to  it  between  Polycarp  and  II  Peter. 

To  trace  this  Petrine  tradition  farther  back  we  must  investigate  its 
connection  with  the  Peter-Mark  tradition  and  the  provenance  of  the 
Gospel  of  Mark. 

1  Cf.  G.  Wohlenberg,  Petrusbrief  und  Judasbrief  (Zahn’s  Kommentar  zur  N.T., 
XV),  1  and  2,  1915.  Spitta,  Der  zweite  Brief  des  Petrus  und  der  Brief  des  Judas , 
Halle,  1885. 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  FRAGMENTS 


67 


There  are  varying  traditions  about  Mark  (see  Acta  Sanctorun  xi.  346 
ff.).  Jerome  ( De  vir.  iii.  8),  says:  “Mortuus  est  octavo  Neronis  anno 
et  sepultus  Alexandriae.”  This  is  probably,  as  usually,  nothing  better 
than  an  amplification  of  Eusebius’  remark  ( H.E .  ii.  16.  24)  which  says 
that  Mark  was  succeeded  in  that  year  by  Anianus  as  bishop  of  Alexandria. 
The  Acta  Marci  and  the  Chronicon  Pascale  say  he  was  dragged  to  death. 
The  Roman  Martyrology  commemorates  him  as  a  martyr,  on  April  25, 
at  Alexandria.  A  later  tradition  transfers  his  relics  to  Venice.  He  is 
first  connected  with  Alexandria  by  Epiphanius  ( Haer .  51.6)  and  Eusebius 
(H.E.  ii.  16.  24).  Origen  and  Clement  make  no  allusion  to  any  connec¬ 
tion  between  Mark  and  Alexandria,  which  is  a  very  strong  argumentum 
ex  silentio.  Could  it  be  that  Mark’s  connection  with  Alexandria  was 
effected  through  the  Petrine  Tradition  ?  It  has  been  noted  with  Jacquier 
that  there  is  a  strong  undercurrent  of  Alexandrine  thought  and  lan¬ 
guage  in  the  three  Epistles — Hebrews,  I  Peter,  and  Clement — for  which 
Jacquier  accounts  by  supposing  that  Clement's  education  was  Alex¬ 
andrine.  The  close  relation  of  these  Epistles  with  Clement  makes  this 
possibility  tremendously  important  for  our  investigation  of  the  place 
of  origin  of  the  K.P.,  which  all  indications  seem  to  trace  to  Alexandria. 
The  same  Petrine  tradition  which  connected  Mark  with  Peter,  or  Peter 
with  Mark,  in  Rome,  functioned  in  a  similar  manner  at  Alexandria.1 
The  tradition  appears  in  several  forms.  In  substance  it  runs:  when 
Peter  was  preaching  in  Rome,  his  hearers  asked  Mark,  who  had  been 
Peter’s  companion  and  interpreter,  to  put  into  writing  for  them  what 
the  apostle  had  preached.  The  result  was  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  This 
happened,  “praedicante  Petro  evangelium  palam  Romae,  ”  according 
to  a  supposed  work  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  (. Adumbrationes  in  I 
Petri)  quoted  by  Eusebius  (H.E.  vi.  14).  According  to  Irenaeus  (Adv. 
haer.  3.  1)  the  writing  was  done  “after  the  departure  (exodon)  of  these” 
— Peter  and  Paul,  apparently  meaning  their  death.  Papias,  quoted  by 
Eusebius  (H.E.  iii.  39.  15),  says  he  learned  from  “the  Presbyter”  that 

1  Chrysostom  (Horn,  in  Mt.  3)  says  Mark  wrote  in  Egypt.  This  is  probably  an 
erroneous  interpretation  of  the  tradition  recorded  by  Eusebius  (H.E.  ii.  16):  “Mark 
went  to  Egypt  and  there  preached  the  Gospel  he  had  written,  and  himself  founded  the 
first  Christian  community  in  Alexandria.  So  great  was  the  number  of  men  and 
women  first  converted  who  led  a  chaste  and  strict  life  that  finally  Mark’s  companion 
and  helper  praised  in  writing  their  diligence,  community  life,  festivities,  and  the  whole 
manner  of  their  life.”  In  the  following  chapter,  Eusebius  dwells  at  length  upon  Philo 
and  his  Therapeutae.  This  mistaking  of  Philo  for  a  companion  of  Mark  and  the 
Therapeutae  for  Christians  by  the  “Father  of  Church  History”  is  remarkable. 


68 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


“  Mark,  having  been  Peter’s  interpreter,  wrote  carefully  what  he  remem¬ 
bered  (not  however  in  order)  was  said  and  done  by  the  Lord,  for  he  had 
neither  heard  the  Lord  nor  followed  him,  but  afterwards,  as  I  said, 
Peter  as  much  as  was  needed  confirmed  the  teaching.”  What  seems  to 
have  happened  was  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  appeared  in  Rome  shortly 
after  the  death  of  Peter,  and  that  Mark  was  the  authority  for  its  correct¬ 
ness,  and  through  Mark  it  was  connected  with  Peter.  See  Bacon 
(Is  Mark  a  Roman  Gospel?,  p.  39): 

Either,  then,  this  primitive  Gospel  [Mark]  must  have  emanated  from  some 
center  of  very  great  authority  and  importance  with  or  without  the  important 
sanction  of  an  alleged  derivation  from  Peter;  or  we  are  at  a  loss  to  account  for 
the  dominant  position  it  acquired  in  every  region  of  the  early  church  to  which 
our  knowledge  extends.  Such  an  authoritative  center  of  emanation  might 
be  Rome  ....  Jerusalem  ....  Antioch.  But  Antioch,  like  Ephesus  and 
Jerusalem,  has  a  Gospel  of  its  own,  and  yet  uses  Mark. 

Further  he  says  (p.  45),  after  remarking  that  the  Jerusalem  church 
preferred  traditional  teaching  to  writing: 

The  result  was  that  the  first  widely  circulated  Gospels,  properly  so-called, 
were  Greek,  though  they  rest  on  a  Semitic  foundation.  The  Aramaic  com¬ 
positions  of  which  we  have  actual  knowledge  through  surviving  fragments  and 
reports  by  the  Fathers  are  without  exception  later  than  the  Greek  and  based 
upon  them. 

The  prominence  of  Peter  in  early  Christian  tradition,  art,  and 
literature  certainly  justifies  this  appeal  to  his  authority  as  the  source 
of  the  first  written  Gospel;  and  the  intimate  relation  of  Mark  to  Peter 
would  substantiate  the  probability  that  this  first  Gospel  linked  up  with 
Peter’s  preaching  through  Mark;  and  the  death  of  Peter  in  Rome  and 
the  abundant  documentary  evidence  of  Mark’s  presence  there,  would 
designate  Rome  as  the  place  where  Mark’s  Gospel  appeared.  The  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  narrates  much  concerning  Peter  in  Jerusalem  and 
Palestine  after  the  crucifixion.  When  delivered  from  prison  by  the 
angel,  according  to  Acts  (12:12)  he  goes  “to  the  house  of  Mary  the 
mother  of  John,  who  is  called  Mark,  where  many  were  gathered,  and 
praying,”  and  tells  them  (12:17)  how  “the  Lord  led  him  out  of  prison, 
and  said:  ‘Tell  James  and  the  brethren  these  things.’  And  going  out 
he  went  to  another  place.”  Barnabas  and  Saul  came  to  Jerusalem, 
apparently  about  this  time  (Acts  12:25),  with  alms  sent  from  Antioch 
to  relieve  the  poor  at  Jerusalem  apparently  during  the  famine  “which 
occurred  under  Claudius”  (Acts  11:28-30).  This  date  is  generally 


COMMENTARY  ON  TEE  FRAGMENTS 


69 


supposed  in  church  tradition  to  be  42  a.d.,  or  twelve  years  after  the 
crucifixion.  That  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  purposely  holds  the  apostles 
in  Jerusalem  for  “twelve  years,”  even  when  “all  are  dispersed  .  .  .  . 
except  the  apostles”  (Acts  8:1),  is  significant  (cf.  K.P.  VI).  That  Peter 
preached  in  Pontus,  etc.  (I  Pet.  1:1),  that  he  was  in  Antioch  seven  years, 
in  Rome  twenty-five,  and  was  martyred  under  Nero,  a.d.  67,  are  tradi¬ 
tions  more  or  less  contradictory,  and  do  not  concern  us  here.  That 
Peter  preached  in  Palestine  and  Syria  is  told  us  by  the  Acts ;  that  he  was 
martyred  in  Rome  there  is  abundant  evidence.  That  v  Mark  was  with 
Peter  is,  in  Bacon’s  opinion,  supported  by  Acts,  chapters  10-12;  13:13; 
15:38;  Col.  4:10;  Gal.  2:10.  Cf.  also  Philemon  24;  I  Pet.  5:14.* 

1  After  writing  the  above,  the  writer  has  made  the  acquaintance  of  Professor 
S.  J.  Case’s  very  ingenious  hypothesis  of  two  main  questions  at  issue  between  the 
three  so-called  parties  of  the  early  Christian  church,  which  throws  helpful  light  upon 
the  Petrine  tradition  and  our  problems.  According  to  Professor  Case’s  hypothesis, 
the  question  at  issue  in  Gal.  2: 1-10  was  the  admission  of  gentile  converts  to  Christi¬ 
anity  without  circumcision.  In  the  Antiochene  community,  composed  so  largely  of 
t  gentile  converts,  there  was  no  difficulty  in  doing  this,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  was 
the  only  reasonable  thing  to  do.  However,  certain  zealots  of  the  law  from  Jerusalem 
started  disturbance,  and  Paul  and  Barnabas,  accompanied  by  Mark,  taking  Titus 
as  a  test  case,  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  have  an  understanding  with  James  and  the  rest 
“who  seemed  to  be  something”  (Acts  15:2;  12:25;  Gal.  2:2-3).  This  was  about 
the  time  of  the  famine,  mentioned  in  Acts  11:28,  under  Claudius,  and  the  death  of 
Herod  Agrippa  (Acts  12:23;  44  a.d.);  which  event  may  also  account  for  Peter’s 
liberation  from  prison  (Acts  12:7-17).  The  “other  place”  (Acts  12:17),  to  which 
Peter  went  after  obtaining  his  freedom  from  prison,  was  probably  Antioch,  where 
we  find  him  in  Gal.  2:11.  By  this  time  a  new  problem  was  in  the  making  at  Antioch, 
solved  there  in  the  same  reasonable  and  only  way  as  the  one  about  circumcision  had 
been  solved,  namely  of  Jewish  Christians  eating  with  uncircumcised  converts  to 
Christianity.  Even  Peter,  “before  certain  ones  came  from  James,  ate  with  gentiles. 
But  when  they  had  come  he  withdrew  and  separated  himself,  fearing  those  who  were 
of  the  circumcision.  And  to  his  simulation  other  Jews  also  agreed,  so  that  even 
Barnabas  was  led  into  that  simulation.  But  when  I  saw,”  says  Paul,  “that  they 
were  not  walking  straight  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  I  said  to  Cephas  in  the  presence 
of  all:  ‘If  you,  though  you  are  a  Jew,  live  like  a  heathen  ( ethnikos ),  and  not  like  a 
Jew,  how  do  you  compel  Gentiles  to  judaize?’”  (Gal.  2:11-14).  This  was  the  real 
cause  of  separation  between  Barnabas  and  Paul  (Acts  15 : 39).  Paul  uncompromisingly 
contended  for  Christian  fellowship  between  Jewish  and  gentile  converts,  even  at  table. 
Peter  and  Barnabas  and  Mark  (Acts  15:37),  giving  in  to  the  demand  of  James  and  the 
Jerusalem  community,  refrained  from  such  fellowship  at  table. 

However,  the  rupture  was  not  a  violent  one,  and  the  apostles  continued  their 
friendly  co-operation,  only  agreeing  to  allow  each  his  own  field  of  labor.  From  this 
time  on,  Paul  leaves  Antioch  and  Syria  to  Peter,  and  shifts  his  own  base  of  missionary 
operations  to  Greece  or  Macedonia.  Peter  continued  his  preaching  down  the  coast 
of  Syria.  It  was  during  this  time  that  he  had  such  experience  as  that  related  in 


?o 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


The  writing  of  Mark  was  probably  first  known  as  “the  memoirs” 
(< apomnemoneumata )  as  Justin  apparently  quotes  it  {Dial.  106.  3).  The 
word  evangelion  was  in  common  use,  meaning  “a  reward  for  good  news,” 
or  “  the  good  news  ”  itself.  Its  use  by  Paul  had  given  it  a  special  meaning 
as  the  good  news  of  Jesus’  preaching,  Possibly  it  was  Mark’s  use  of 
the  word  (1:15;  8:35;  10:29;  13:10;  14:9;  16:15)  that  connected 
it  with  the  written  “memoirs.” 


Acts,  chapter  10,  the  Cornelius  incident.  The  experience  convinced  him  that  Paul 
was  right  in  insisting  on  table  fellowship  between  Jewish  and  gentile  Christians,  and 
himself  began  to  defend  the  practice.  At  Jerusalem,  “they  who  were  of  the  circum¬ 
cision  called  him  to  account  saying,  ‘Why  did  you  go  in  and  eat  with  uncircumcised 
men?’”  (Acts  11:3). 

The  issue  of  this  discussion  was  probably  not  so  smooth  as  Acts,  chapter  n, 
makes  it.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  Paul  was  there.  There  is,  however,  no  reason  to  think 
the  rupture  was  so  complete  as  some  have  contended.  Peter  and  James  doubtless 
continued  friendly  co-operation,  just  as  Peter  and  Paul  had  after  the  affair  at  Antioch. 
But  there  seems  to  have  been  a  similar  separation  between  James  and  Peter,  Peter 
leaving  Jerusalem  and  Judea  to  James  as  Paul  had  left  Antioch  and  Syria  to  Peter. 

This  hypothesis  helps  us  also  with  the  chronology  of  Peter’s  life.  If  the  date  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas’  visit  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  15:2;  Gal.  2:1)  was  in  the  reign  of 
Claudius  (Acts  11:28)  and  before  Herod’s  death  (Acts  12:23),  that  is,  41-44  a.d., 
and  time,  say  a  year  or  so,  is  allowed  to  elapse  between  this  event  and  Peter’s  arrival 
in  Antioch  (Gal.  2:11),  and  again,  time  for  Peter’s  experience  of  such  as  the  Cornelius 
event  and  his  change  of  attitude  toward  the  table-fellowship  problem,  the  discussion 
of  this  problem,  as  related  in  Acts  11:3,  would  fall  about  the  year  50.  After  this 
date,  then,  Peter,  in  this  hypothesis,  is  no  longer  in  Jerusalem,  but  at  Antioch  or  in 
Syria.  This  agrees  with  the  tradition  which  makes  Peter  the  first  bishop  of  Antioch. 
It  would  also  account  for  the  strange  action  of  Paul,  returning  from  his  second  mis¬ 
sionary  journey,  “saluting  the  church”  at  Caesarea,  and  going  on  to  Antioch,  without 
going  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  18:22).  This  must  have  been  not  long  after  50  a.d.,  allowing 
time  for  the  events  of  Acts  15:40-18,  22;  18:  23-20,  38;  19: 10,  the  Corinthian,  Roman, 
and  other  correspondence.  It  is  to  be  noted  that,  when  he  later  went  to  Jerusalem, 
Paul  was  “gladly  received”  by  the  Jerusalem  community  (Acts  21:17),  though 
“they  were  all  zealous  for  the  law”  (Acts  21:20).  No  mention  is  made  of  Peter  at 
this  time,  which  would  indicate  that  he  was  not  in  Jerusalem.  After  Paul  had  been  in 
custody  at  Caesarea  two  years  (Acts,  chaps.  24,  25)  Felix  succeeded  Fortius  Festus. 
From  Josephus  FI.  {Ant.  xx.  8.  9)  it  seems  probable  that  this  was  early  in  the  reign  of 
Nero  (54-68);  Felix, who  had  been  appointed  byClaudius  (Jos.  Ant.xx.  7.  i),was  accused 
by  Roman  nobles  and  brought  to  Rome  by  Nero,  “and  he  had  certainly  been  brought 
to  punishment,  unless  Nero  had  yielded  to  the  importunate  solicitations  of  his 
brother  Pallas,  who  was  at  that  time  held  in  the  greatestlionor  by  him”  {Ant.  xx.  8.  9.). 
The  events  related  by  Tacitus  {An.  13.54;  Hist.  5.  9)  would  seem  to  have  been  after 
this;  hence  Josephus  says,  “at  that  time.”  However,  it  is  generally  thought  that 
the  change  of  Felix  for  Festus  took  place  about  60  a.d.  The  next  two  years  (Acts 
28:30)  Paul  was  in  Rome.  Writing  to  the  Colossians  he  sends  the  greetings  of  “Mark, 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  FRAGMENTS 


7i 


3.  The  Sermons  of  Peter;  Kerygmata ,  Clementina,  etc. — The  associa¬ 
tion  of  the  name  of  Clement  of  Rome  with  Peter  was  doubtless  the  source 
of  the  extensive  Clementine  Literature.  The  legend  that  Clement 
became  Peter’s  companion  on  his  missions  in  Syria,  and,  at  Peter’s 
instruction,  wrote  down  his  sermons  and  sent  them  to  James,  bishop 
of  Jerusalem,  formed  the  nucleus  around  which  grew  a  variegated 
romance  embodying  “ Sermons  of  Peter”  that  bear  a  generally  recog- 


the  cousin  of  Barnabas,  concerning  whom  you  have  received  command  that  if  he  come 
to  you  you  are  to  receive  him”  (Col.  4:10).  Does  this  mean  that  Mark  contemplated  a 
visit  to  Colossa  ?  May  it  not  only  mean  that  the  Colossians  had  been  put  on  their 
guard  against  those  who  differed  from  Paul,  as  Mark  had  in  the  matter  of  table  fellow¬ 
ship,  and  that  Paul  wished,  now  that  Mark  agreed  with  him,  to  tell  the  Colossians  to 
receive  him  should  he  ever  come  among  them?  Or  are  we  to  suspect  here  another 
recommendation  of  the  Roman  “Mark”  who  appears  as  “my  son  Mark”  in  I  Pet. 
5:13?  Anyhow,  there  is  no  evidence  that  Mark  ever  went  to  Colossa,  but  more 
reason  to  believe  that  he  remained  in  Rome.  The  mention  of  his  kinship  with  Barn¬ 
abas,  and  the  mention  of  Clement  (Phil.  4.  3),  if  it  is  the  same  Clement  who,  according 
to  tradition,  wrote  to  the  Corinthians  later,  may  be  the  base  of  the  Clementine  legend 
linking  Clement  with  Peter  through  Barnabas.  If  this  Mark  is  the  same  “John 
Mark”  who  was  once  with  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  whose  mother  Mary’s  house 
(Acts  12:12)  was  a  gathering  place  of  Christians  in  Jerusalem  and  well  known  to 
Peter,  the  friendship  of  Peter  and  Mark,  which  Papias  has  recorded,  may  not  rest 
only  on  that  writer’s  erroneous  reading  of  I  Pet.  5: 13,  as  Bacon  has  strangely  thought. 
Indeed,  there  is  room  for  doubt,  considering  Polycarp’s  use  of  I  Peter  without  naming 
it,  that  it  was  now  circulating  under  the  name  of  Peter,  and  possibly  lacked  this  (5: 13) 
passage  when  Papias  wrote. 

What  Peter  was  doing  and  where  he  went  during  the  time  which  elapsed  between 
his  leaving  Jerusalem,  probably  about  50  a.d.,  and  his  martyrdom  in  Rome,  which 
tradition  dates  67  a.d.,  there  seems  no  way  to  learn.  Not  much  can  be  made  of  the 
date  67  a.d.  It  is  only  a  little  sum  in  addition :  1 2  years  in  Jerusalem  plus  25  in  Rome. 
The  other  seven  years  at  Antioch,  and  it  is  not  said  how  many  in  Pontus,  Cappadocia, 
etc.,  would  make  Peter  antedate  Christ.  However,  the  evidence  is  too  abundant  to 
question  the  fact  that  Peter  died  in  Rome,  and  that  this  happened  under  Nero. 

If  the  expression  “I  am  of  Cephas”  means  that  there  was  a  Petrine  faction  at 
Corinth,  it  would  point  to  Peter’s  having  been  there,  as  Paul  and  Apollos,  mentioned 
in  the  same  connection,  cert^htly  had  (I  Cor.  1:12;  Acts  19:1).  Even  if  the  First 
Epistle  of  Peter  was  not  written  by  him,  as  it  certainly  was  not,  there  may  yet  be  some 
historic  reason  for  the  pretension  that  Peter  had  preached  in  “Pontus,  Galatia, 
Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bythinia”  (I  Pet.  1:1).  “The  Jew  of  Pontic  race,  Aquila,” 
whom  Paul  met  at  Corinth  coming  from  Rome,  expelled  by  Claudius  (Acts  18:2), 
may  be  an  indication,  however  slight,  that  Aquila  had  accompanied  Peter  from  Pontus 
to  Rome.  There  was  some  reason  why  Paul  refrained  from  going  to  Rome,  and  it 
was  probable  that  some  apostle,  such  as  Peter,  was  there  (Rom.  1:13;  15:20).  But 
there  was  also  some  reason  why  he  wrote  to  the  Romans  at  all.  Chapter  15  would 
seem  to  imply  that  there  was  a  problem  about  food.  The  long  list  of  salutations  at 


72 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


nized  resemblance  with  the  K.P.  and  may  represent  an  elaborated 
form  of  what  is  referred  to  as  the  “Kerygmata”  or  sermons  of  Peter 
which  are  simply  unknown,  and  it  is  the  merest  conjecture  that  they 
may  have  once  existed  in  written  form  and  perhaps  were  one  of  the 
sources  used  by  the  writer  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  M.  H.  Waitz1 
has  made  a  thorough  analysis  of  the  Clementine  Homilies  and  Recogni¬ 
tions  and  concluded  that  the  source  document  (which  will  be  referred  to 


the  end  of  the  epistle,  if  it  belongs  to  this  epistle,  may  mean  that  Paul  had  made  the 
acquaintance  of  many  Romans  at  Philippi,  or  elsewhere  on  his  missions,  and  they 
were  entreating  him  to  come  to  Rome,  and  he  saw  that  he  did  have  some  right  to  go 
there,  as  he  was  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  Possibly  he  also  vaguely  decried  the 
coming  ascendancy  of  the  Roman  church,  and  the  union  of  his  and  Peter’s  work, 
which  was  accomplished  a  few  decades  after  their  death. 

The  legend  of  Peter’s  going  to  Rome  to  refute  Simon  the  Magician  is  too  varied 
to  be  of  much  value,  though  here  again  there  must  be  some  fire  where  there  is  so  much 
smoke.  Doubtless  “Simon  Magas”  is  more  or  less  a  convenient  personification  for 
the  typical  magician,  and  the  practice  of  magic,  of  which  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is 
evidence,  at  Rome,  if  Mark  is  a  Roman  Gospel,  would  of  itself  be  sufficient  grounds 
for  bringing  Peter  there  in  legend.  But  the  legend  is  just  as  closely,  perhaps  even 
more  closely,  bound  up  with  Syrian  connections — Caesarea,  Tripolis,  Antioch,  etc. 
Matthew,  the  Syrian  Gospel,  while  not  traditionally  related  to  Peter  as  Mark  is, 
nevertheless  is  the  one  which  promoted,  or  at  least  recorded,  Peter’s  exaltation,  thus 
affording  additional  evidence  of  Peter’s  prominence  in  Syria.  May  it  not  be  that  the 
Roman  church,  after  the  death  of  Peter  there,  cherished  his  memory  and  claimed  his 
authority  for  its  Gospel,  Mark,  and  that  Antioch,  putting  forth  its  own  claim,  extolled 
Peter  in  its  Gospel,  Matthew,  and  that  later  Rome  and  Antioch  made  common  issue 
for  their  mutual  ends  against  Jerusalem  and  Ephesus,  till,  after  the  fall  of  the  Jerusalem 
church  (135  a.d.),  Ephesus  united  with  Rome  and  Antioch,  perhaps  through  the 
instrumentality  of  such  men  as  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  and  its  Gospel,  John,  was 
joined  to  the  Antiochene  Matthew  and  Roman  Mark,  with  the  universalizing  Luke 
added  to  make  the  triumphant  Fourfold  Gospel,  promulgated  and  held  together  by  the 
Lucan  Acts  ?  Would  not  this  suggest  a  favorable  opportunity  for  the  interpolation, 
if  they  are  interpolations,  of  such  texts  as  Mt.  16:16-18;  Jo.  chap.  21;  L.,  chaps. 
22,  32;  and  Mk.  16:9-20  ?  It  would  make  the  Roman  Christian  letters  of  Domitian’s 
reign  very  opportune,  and  create  a  veritable  demand  for  the  Lucan  Acts,  the  Ignation 
Letters,  and  Clement  to  the  Corinthians. 

Though  we  know  regrettably  so  little  about  Alexandria  at  this  period,  there  is 
doubtless  history  behind  the  legendary  connection  of  Alexandria  with  Rome,  through 
the  Petrine-Markan  tradition.  This  question  will  come  up  for  our  consideration 
later,  but  for  the  present  it  should  be  remarked  that  there  is  sufficient  Alexandrine 
element  in  the  Roman  literature  of  this  time,  to  indicate  that  the  Petrine  tradition  is 
also  functioning  in  Alexandria. 

1  On  the  Clementine  Literature  see  Bardenhewer,  G.A.L.,  1,351  ff.,  and  M.  H. 
Waitz,  “Die  Pseudoclementinen  Homilien  und  Rekognitionen ”  (Leipzig,  1904),  in 
T.U.,  XXV,  4.  The  text  used  in  this  dissertation  is  M.P.G.L. 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  FRAGMENTS 


73 


in  the  following  discussion  as  K.K.)  was  written  at  a  time  when  the 
world  was  concerned  with  such  problems  as  the  origin  of  the  cosmos, 
and  was  convinced  that  a  solution  was  looked  for  in  vain  from  philosophy 
and  magic,  and  to  be  found  only  in  “the  true  Word  or  Logos”  ( H .  i.  13; 
R.  1.  10);  “The  true  Prophet”  (FI.  1.  19;  R.  1.  16);  “ the  Prophet  of 
truth”  (H.  1.  20;  R.  1.  17);  “the  prophetic  announcement”  (H.  1.  21; 
R.  1.  18).  Man  must  believe  in  the  true  Prophet  ( H .  1.  19;  R.  1.  16), 
for  he  has  a  divine  revelation  (H.  3.  20);  which  teaches  belief  in  one  God 
(H.  2.  12;  12.  23;  R.  2.  36,  40,  60).  “In  the  preaching  of  Peter  on  the 
journey  from  Caesarea  to  Tripolis,  the  writer  takes  up  the  polemic 
against  popular  beliefs  of  heathendom,  belief  in  demons  and  gods,  from 
which  he  turns  to  belief  in  one  God  and  Baptism  (H.  7-1 1;  R.  4-6) 
just  as  a  catechist  might  prepare  a  catechumen  for  baptism”  (p.  49). 
“So  gibt  sich  die  Schrift  als  eine  Apologie  bezw.  Polemik  des 
Christentums  gegen  Haeresie  und  Heidentum,  im  weitesten  sinn  des 
Wortes”  (p.  50).  He  summarizes  the  contents  of  the  supposed  original 
document  (p.  52),  in  which  he  thinks  there  were  no  Judaizing  tendencies 
and  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  written  in  Rome  about  150  a.d.  (p.  61). 
The  sources  of  this  original  document  (pp.  77  ff.)  he  thinks  were  the 
K.K.  The  H.R.  attained  their  present  form  220-30  a.d.  (p.  366). 

While  it  seems  the  Clementina  are  the  outgrowth  of  the  same 
tradition  of  Peter’s  preaching  which  supplied  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  K.P.  with  material,  that  original  element  has  been  lost  beyond 
recovery  or  recognition  in  the  mass  of  shifting  romance  which  has  reached 
us.  The  passages  which  seem  more  likely  to  contain  remnants  of  the 
original  kerygma  are  H.  10.  16;  R.  5.  20;  H.  17.  7;  H.  10.  9;  R.5.30; 
H.  10,  25. 

4.  Other  Fragments ,  more  or  less  probable ., — Frag.  XI1  very  probably 
belongs  to  the  K.P.,  “Doctrina”  being  really  a  good  translation  of 

1  Frag.  XI,  Orig.  De  princ.  praef.  8.  “Appellatio  autem  asomaton,  id  est  incor- 
porei,  non  solum  apud  multos  alios  verumetiam  apud  nostras  Scripturas  est  inusitata  et 
incognita.  Si  vero  quis  velit  nobis  proferre  ex  illo  libello  qui  Petri  Doctrina  appellatur 
ubi  Salvator  videtur  ad  discipulos  dicere:  Non  sum  daemonium  incorporeum  ?  primo 
respondendum  est  ei,  quoniam  ille  liber  inter  ecclesiasticos  non  habetur,  et  ostenden- 
dum  quia  neque  Petri  est  ipsa  Scriptura,  neque  alterius  cujusdam,  qui  Spiritu  Dei 
fuerit  inspiratus.”  Cf.  Dob.,  pp.  82  and  134. 

Cf.  Ignatius  ad  Smyrn.  3.  1-2,  certainly  not  his  own  words.  Cf.  Jerome  De 
vir.  illustr.  iii.  16,  and  Klostermann  ( Apoc .,  II,  Ev.  2,  p.  8),  who  thinks  this  passage 
belongs  to  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  Also  Preuschen,  Anteleg.,  I,  8. 

Cf.  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  II,  Copt.  (Schmidt,  T.U.,  VIII,  1,  p.  2):  “The  Lord 
came  to  us :  ‘  Come  and  ....  you,  Peter,  who  thrice  denied  me  ....  do  you  still 
deny  me  ?  ’  We  ran  to  him,  though  in  our  hearts  we  doubted  that  it  was  true.  He  said 


74 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


kerygma,  better  in  fact  than  “ Praedicatio.”  Frag.  XII.* 1  This  “libellus” 
is  doubtless  the  same  one  that  Origen  (De  princ.  praef.  8)  calls  “Doctrina 
Petri,”  and  with  the  same  great  probability  is  to  be  identified  with 
the  K.P.  Frag.  XIII2  has  no  claim  to  kinship  with  the  K.P.  either  in 
name  or  resemblance.  “Epistula”  cannot  by  any  stretch  of  the  imagina¬ 
tion  be  construed  to  mean  “Kerygma.”  “Nolite  judicare  fratres 
vestros”  would  sound  very  strange  in  an  apologetic  like  the  K.P.  Frag. 
XIV3  and  XV4  are  very  like  the  K.P.  fragments  which  Clement  quotes 
by  name,  and  would  fit  in  an  apologetic  of  the  character  the  K.P.  appar¬ 
ently  is.  The  name  “didaskalia  Petrou”  is  apparently  not  a  mistake 
for  kerygma ,  occurring  as  it  does  more  than  once,  nor  could  the  Latin 
“Doctrina”  intervene  between  the  Kerygma  and  Gregory  Nazianzen. 
The  difficulty  of  accounting  for  this  change  of  name  throws  a  doubt 
upon  these  two  fragments,  which  has  not  yet  been  satisfactorily  removed. 
They  are  surely  older  than  Peter  of  Alexandria  (+310),  who  for  the  rest 

to  us :  ‘  Why  do  you  still  doubt  and  disbelieve  ?  I  am  He  that  said  to  you,  regarding 
my  flesh,  and  death  and  resurrection,  that  you  know  I  am  He.  You,  Peter,  put 
your  finger  in  the  nail  wound  in  my  hand;  you,  Thomas,  put  your  finger  in  the 

lance  wound  in  my  side;  and  you,  Andrew,  touch  my  feet  and  see  that  you . We 

answered  him:  ‘We  have  known  in  truth  that  ....  in  the  flesh . ’” 

1  Frag.  XII.  Orig.  Horn.  X  in  Lev.  (Delarue,  II,  246) :  “  Sed  est  alia  adhuc  religiosa 
(scl.  jejunandi  ratio)  cujus  laus  quorundam  apostolorum  letteris  praedicatur :  invenimus 
enim  in  quodam  libello  ab  apostolis  dictum:  beatus  est  qui  etiam  jejunat  pro  eo  ut 
alat  pauperum.  Hujus  jejunium  valde  acceptum  est  apud  Deum  et  revera  digne 
satis;  imitatur  enim  ilium  qui  animum  suam  posuit  pro  fratribus  suis.” 

Cf.  Pastor  Hermae.  Sim.  v.  3.  6;  Aristides  Apol.  15  (Syr.);  Ep.  Barn.  3:3;  Tertul. 
Dejejun.  adv.  psych,  c.  13;  Dob.,  pp.  84  and  135. 

3  Frag.  XIII.  Aptatus  De  sehism.  Donat,  i.  5  ( M.P.L. ,  XI,  895):  “Cum  in 
epistula  Petri  apostoli  legimus:  nolite  per  opinionem  judicare  fratres  vestros.”  Dob., 
pp.  104  and  134. 

3  Frag.  XIV.  Greg.  Naz.  Ep.  20  ad  Caer.  frat.  ii.  19:  “for  a  weeping  soul  is  near 
to  God,  says  somewhere  the  wonderful  Peter.”  Cf.  Orat.  17.  5  (i.  321);  Elias  Cret. 
M.P.G.,  36.  395;  Dob.,  p.  81,  n.  1;  Robinson,  pp.  109  and  134. 

4  Frag.  XV.  Leontius  Hiera  (Lequien,  II,  475,  E.  titl.  8  (V):  R.  fol.  167;  litt. 
E.  titl.  44;  H.  fol.  284,  a.  1):  “From  the  teachings  of  Peter:  He  is  rich  who  has 
mercy  on  many  and  remembers  that  he  has  to  give  an  account  to  God;  for  God  gives 
all  things  to  all  men  from  His  own  riches.  Understand  that  you  are  rich  in  order  that 
you  may  be  able  to  do  good,  taking  freely  of  that  which  you  possess.  Remember 
what  you  have  earned  for  yourself  will  be  left  to  others;  be  careful  of  what  belongs 
to  others.  Remember  all  things  are  equal  before  God,  and  no  one  will  be  poor.” 
Cf.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  14  (al.  16.  ed.  Maur.,  I,  274)  Dob.,  pp.  no  and  134. 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  FRAGMENTS 


75 


has  no  claim  at  all  to  them.  Frag.  XVI1  lies  under  the  same  cloud  as 
the  two  preceding  fragments,  and  the  difficulty  is  enhanced  by  the 
presence  of  “  Alexandras  ”  after  Peter’s  name.  Hilgenfeld  has  ably 
defended  the  fragment  against  Dobschuetz,  and  shown  that  the  word 
later  crept  into  the  manuscript.  Whatever  the  difficulty  be  of  explaining 
the  change  of  kerygma  into  didaskalia ,  if  it  was  but  a  change  of  title, 
it  seems  to  the  present  writer  evident  that  K.P.  VIII  lies  behind  this 
passage.  Frag.  XVII2  is  too  brief  to  help  us  much  in  placing  it  where 
it  belongs.  It  seems  to  have  nothing  in  common  with  the  K.P.  but  the 
name  of  “Blessed  Peter,”  the  commonest  name  in  church  history. 
Frag.  XVIII3  is  surely  related  to  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews. 
What  this  “Pauli  praedicatio”  could  be,  is  a  mystery.  In  spite  of 
Hilgenf eld’s  ingenious  effort  to  identify  it  with  our  K.P.,  it  is  impossible 
for  us  to  agree  with  him.  The  allusion  to  Peter  and  Paul  in  Rome  is 
doubtless  a  tradition  incorporated  in  some  form  in  the  many  “Acts” 
of  Peter  or  Paul.  Frag.  XIX4  might  link  up  fairly  well  with  K.P.  VI 

1  Frag.  XVI.  Leontius  Hiera  (Lequien,  II,  336,  Dob.,  p.  118):  “Saint  Peter  of 
Alexandria’s  teachings:  ‘Miserable  me!  They  have  not  learned  that  God  sees  the 
mind  and  hears  the  soul’s  voice.  I  confess  my  sins  to  myself  saying:  God  is  merciful, 
and  I  did  not  cease  at  all  but  all  the  more  acknowledged  my  sins  and  prolonged  my 
sacrifices  to  God.’” 

2  Frag.  XVII.  Oecom.  Com.  ad  Jacob,  v  (op.  II,  478):  “And  there  is  among 
you  a  saying  of  the  blessed  Peter:  One  (alone)  living  the  community  life  and  one 
(alone)  living  pure  is  useless  and  fruitless.”  Cf.  Dob.,  pp.  118  and  134. 

3  Frag.  XVIII.  Pseudo-Cyp.  De  rebapt.  17  (Hortel,  III,  90):  “Est  autem 
adulterini  hujus,  immo  internecini  baptismatis.  Si  qui  alius  auctor,  turn  etiam 
quidam  ab  eisdem  ipsis  haereticis  propter  hunc  eundem  errorem  confictus  liber,  qui 
inscribitur  Pauli  Praedicatio,  in  quo  libro  contra  omnes  Scripturas  et  de  peccato 
proprio  confitentem  invenies  Christum,  qui  solus  omnino  nihil  deliquit,  et  ad  accipien- 
dum  Joannis  baptisma  quasi  invitum  a  matre  sua  Maria  esse  compulsum,  item  cum 
baptizaretur,  ignem  super  aquam  esse  visum,  quod  in  evangelio  nullo  est  scriptum  et 
post  tanta  tempora  Petrum  et  Paulum  post  conlationem  evangelii  in  Hierusalom  et 
mutuam  cogitationem  et  altercationem  et  rerum  agendarum  disputationem  postremo 
in  Urbe  quasi  tunc  primum  invicem  sibi  esse  cognitos  et  quaedam  alia  hujusmodi 
absurde  ac  turpiter  conficta,  quae  omnia  in  ilium  librum  invenies  congesta.”  Cf.  Dob., 
p.  157.  Zahn  ( G.K. ,  II,  2.  2,  p.  881)  thinks  this  is  from  the  Acts  of  Paul,  with  which 
he  identifies  the  passage  in  Clem.  Strom,  vi.  5.  42.  Cf.  note  1,  p.  76. 

4  Frag.  XIX.  Lactantius  Instit.  div.  iv.  21:  “Futura  aperuit  illis  omnia  quae 
Petrus  et  Paulus  Roma  praedicaverunt  et  ea  praedicatio  in  memoriam  scripta  per- 
mansit,  in  qua  sein  multa  alia  mira,  turn  etiam  futurum  esse  dixerunt  ut  post  breve 
tempus  immitteret  Deus  regem,  qui  expugnaret  Iudaeos  et  civitates  eorum  solo  adae- 
quaret,  ipsos  autem  fame  sitique  confectos  obsideret;  turn  fore  ut  corporibus  suorum 
vescerentur  et  consumerent  se  inviceus:  postremo  ut  capti  veniunt  in  manus  hostium 


76 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


or  VII  or  IX.  But  the  pretentious  “omnia”  and  “multa  alia  mira,” 
as  well  as  the  location  “Romae”  and  the  association  of  “Petrus  et 
Paulus,”  make  this  “praedicatio  in  memoriam  scripta”  very  different 
from  our  K.P.,  in  the  other  extant  fragments  in  which  there  is  no  allu¬ 
sion  to  “  mira  ”  or  Rome.  Possibly  the  name  Paul  slipped  into  one  expres¬ 
sion  of  Clement  by  sheer  negligence,  perhaps  of  a  copyist,  who  was  so 
used  to  writing  the  phase  “as  the  apostle  Paul  says,  “that  he  sleepily 
wrote  it  into  this  text  (Dob.,  “Frag.  XVIII”* 1  {Strom,  vi.  5.  42  f.).  This 
and  Dob.,  “Frag.  XIX”2  are  so  clearly  connected  with  the  others  in  context 
that  it  is  only  with  arbitrary  violence  that  they  can  be  separated. 

The  Barlaam  and  Joasaph  romance  (see  above),  which  was  found  to 
contain  the  Apology  of  Aristides,  contains  a  number  of  passages  which 
are  strikingly  similar  to  what  is  known  of  the  K.P.  Geffcken3  calls  our 
attention  to  several  passages  which  are  plainly  not  original  with  the 
writer  of  the  romance.  They  are  apologetic  and  may  belong  to  the 
K.P.,  but  the  only  apparent  link  is  their  proximity  to  Aristides’  Apology 
and  the  general  trend  of  the  romance,  which  would  make  it  likely  that 
the  writer  would  use  the  K.P.,  were  it  available,  and  he  seems  to  have 
had  access  to  other  such  material,  and  is  so  preoccupied  with  thought 
congenial  with  K.P.  and  Egyptian  atmosphere  that  the  a  priori  proba¬ 
bility  must  be  admitted  in  favor  of  identifying  some  of  this  B.  J.  apolo¬ 
getic  material  with  our  K.P.  The  romance  begins  thus:  “The  country 
called  the  land  of  the  Indians  is  situated  far  from  Egypt.”  It  then 


et  in  conspectu  suo  vexari  acerbissime  conjuges  suos  cernerent,  violari  ac  prostitui 
virgines,  diripi  pueros,  allidi  parvulos,  omnia  denique  igni  ferroque  vastari,  captivos 
in  perpetuum  terris  suis  exterminari  eo  quod  exultaverint  super  amantissimum  et 
probatissimum  Dei  filium.”  Cf.  Dob.,  p.  131. 

1  Frag.  XX.  Clem.  Strom,  vi.  5. 42  ff.  This  passage  should  be  read  in  the  context. 
He  has  been  quoting  freely  from  the  Preaching  of  Peter,  and  without  any  indication  of 
interruption  says:  “The  Apostle  Paul  declares  in  the  Preaching  of  Peter:  ‘Take  also 
the  Greek  books,  read  the  Sibyl,  that  it  may  be  clear  there  is  one  God  and  the  future 
is  coming  to  pass.  Read  also  the  Hystaspes,  and  you  will  find  many  brilliant  and  wise 
things  concerning  the  Son  of  God,  how  many  kings  paid  their  respect  to  Christ,  hating 
him  and  those  bearing  his  name  and  those  believing  on  him,  and  his  patience  and  his 
appearance.  Behold  in  one  word  you  have  it.  All  the  world  and  all  things  in  the 
world,  are  they  not  from  One?  Is  He  not  God?’  Therefore  Peter  says  the  Lord 
said  to  the  apostles:  ‘If  anyone  therefore  of  Israel,  being  converted,  will  believe  on 
God  through  my  name,  his  sins  shall  be  forgiven.  But  after  twelve  years,”’  etc. 
Cf.  Dob.,  p.  124.  Hilgenfeld,  Z.W.T.,  I  (1893),  5255  Zahn,  G.N.T.K. ,  II,  2,  pp.  827  f. 

2  Frag.  XXI.  Dob.,  p.  126. 

3  Cf.  Geffcken,  Zwei  gr.  Apol .,  pp.  82,  316. 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  FRAGMENTS 


77 


describes  the  idolatry  there,  narrates  its  legendary  conversion  by  the 
apostle  Thomas,  and  in  chapter  v  says:  “Now  when  also  in  Egypt 
monasteries  began  to  be  founded  and  the  multitude  of  monks  increased” 

.  .  .  .  Christian  monks  went  to  India.  There  King  Abenner  was 
alarmed  at  the  number  of  nobles  who  became  monks,  and  issued  a  decree 
against  Christianity.  The  story  of  his  son’s,  Prince  Joasaph’s,  con¬ 
version,  is  an  adaptation  of  the  life  of  Gautama  Buddha.  The  monk 
Barlaam  who  converts  the  prince  is  the  representative  of  Christianity 
and  is  made  to  utter,  among  other  things,  the  argument  which  is  recog¬ 
nized  as  the  Apology  of  Aristides  and  other  arguments  which  are  here 
under  consideration  as  possible  K.P.  fragments. 

5.  Date. — It  is  clear  that  Origen  knew  less  than  Clement  about  the 
K.P.,  and  that  Clement  knew  only  what  he  learned  from  his  sources,  or 
source ,  for  apparently  he  used  only  one,  and  this  one  was  apparently 
the  same  as  the  Psalm-Commentary  which  is  always  quoted  together 
with  the  K.P.  This  is  plainly  seen  in  the  Ecc.  Proph.  58  quota¬ 
tion  (see  the  context).  “Les  Exc.  et  Eel.,”  says  Collomp  (p.  39), 
“contiennent  les  extraits  d’un  livre  dont  l’aspect,  le  charactere  sont 
tres  definis  et  particulier;  les  Stromates  ont  utilise  plusieurs  fois  ce 
livre — et  les  Homelies  Clementines  connaissent  une  source  indentique 
ou  apparentee  a  lui.”  He  shows  (pp.  41-46)  that,  though  the  author  of 
the  book  cannot  now  be  learned,  it  was  not  Theodotus,  nor  Pantenus1 
nor  probably  any  known  author.  Bousset2 3  critically  analyzing  a  similar 
passage  of  Clement,  where  he  quotes  the  first  Psalm,  says:  “Dies  ganze 
Verfahren  des  Clemens  findet  nur  dann  seine  Erklaerung,  wenn  wir 
annehmen  duerfen,  dass  er  an  dieser  Stelle  eine  ihm  fertig  vorliegende 
Erklaerung  des  ersten  Psalms  in  den  Zusammenhang  einfuegt.”  At  all 
events  it  seems  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  Psalm-Commentary 
used  by  Clement  was  in  writing,  and  that  it  had  used  our  K.P.  as  a  source, 
and  that  Clement  quotes  the  K.P.  passage  in  the  Psalm-Commentary 
context,  though  the  quotation  takes  him  away  from  his  immediate 
train  of  thought. 

Clement  was  the  first  Christian  writer  of  literature ,  in  the  sense  that 
he  is  not  forced  to  his  task  by  the  emergency  of  the  moment,  as  Chris¬ 
tian  writers  before  him  had  been,  but  wrote  for  the  writing’s  own  sake, 

1  The  authorship  of  this  Psalm-Commentary  is  discussed  by  Collomp,  pp.  141-46. 
He  may  be  rather  too  positive  in  excluding  the  possibility  of  Pantenus.  However, 
it  is  in  any  case  a  witness  to  the  earlier  existences  of  the  Preaching,  which  it  uses  as 

a  source. 

3  Cf.  Bousset,  p.  162. 


78 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


to  preserve  material  that  else  would  have  perished.  In  his  effort  thus  to 
save  from  oblivion  the  store  of  “Schulgut”  that  had  been  handed  down 
from  several  generations  of  Christian  teachers,  who  were  in  turn  but  the 
heirs  of  earlier  Jewish  and  Greek  teachers  and  scholars,  Clement  made 
a  storehouse  of  his  Stromateis.  Bousset  (pp.  235  ff.)  analyzes  the  sources 
of  Strom,  v.  20.  1-55,  4  as  follows: 

20,  3-21,  3  Aegypter;  21,  4-25,  Hellener;  27,  1-31,  2  Pythagoraeer; 
31,  3-5,  Barbaren;  32-40  Altes  Testament;  41-43  Aegypter;  45-50  Hellener 

(und  Pythagoraeer) ;  44-50  Barbaren;  51-54  Altes  Testament . Jeden- 

falls  hat  auch  dieser  Abschnitt  (v.  20-54)  eine  Geschichte  hinter  sich,  die 
schliesslich  bis  in  die  juedische  Apologetik  zuruecklaeuft,  ja  darueber  hinaus 
auf  hellenistische  (neupythagoraeischer)  Quellen  deutet,  in  denen  das  Thema 
der  symbolischen  Mysteri enweisheit  bei  Griechen  und  Barbaren  zuerst  auf- 
getauscht  sein  wird. 

Even  granting,  with  Bousset  (pp.  263  f.),  that  Clement  had  in  great  part 
used  a  source  which  can  best  be  characterized  as  Gnostic,  we  may  stiff 
maintain  that  this  source  used  other  earlier  sources,  some  of  which 
were  not  Gnostic,  as  Collomp  has  plainly  shown,  and  among  these 
was  our  K.P. 

We  arrive  at  a  similar  conclusion  by  following  up  Origen’s  reference 
to  Heracleon,  who  lived  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  That 
the  K.P.  was  older  than  his  work  is  evident.  Nor  does  it  necessarily 
follow  that  all  his  sources  were  tainted  with  his  Valentinian  gnosis. 

That  Aristides  used  the  K.P.  is  so  universally  admitted,  and  so 
evident,  that  reference  need  be  made  only  to  the  discussion  of  Seeberg1 
and  others.  Furthermore,  the  date  of  Aristides,2  whether  124,  129,  or 

1  Cf.  Geffcken,  Zwei  gr.  Apol.,  p.  xxxi,  and  Seeberg,  p.  216. 

2  The  date  of  Aristides’  Apology  has  been  the  subject  of  much  discussion.  The 
principal  reasons  for  holding  that  it  was  addressed  to  Hadrian  are  the  following: 
Eusebius  (H.E.  4.  4)  says:  “Aristides  ....  left  an  apology  for  the  faith  which  he 
addressed  to  Hadrian”  (cf.  also  Chron.  ad  A.  Abr.  2140).  Eusebius  certainly  means 
Hadrian,  about  whom  he  is  writing  in  both  these  places,  and  says:  “Very  many  have 
this  writing  today.”  The  Greek  apology  is  addressed  “  Autokratori  Kaisari  Adrianoi.” 
The  Arm  ini  an  Fragment  “To  the  Emperor  Caesar  Hadrian.”  The  only  Syriac  manu¬ 
script  has  two  inscriptions,  the  first:  “An  apology  which  Aristides  the  philosopher 
made  before  Hadrian  the  king  for  the  fear  of  God.”  The  reasons  for  holding  that 
it  was  addressed  to  Antoninus  Pius  are  the  second  inscription  of  the  Syriac  manuscript: 
“To  Emperor  Caesar  Titus  (?)  Hadrian  Antoninus  Sebastian  Eusebius,  Gratianus, 
Aristides  Athenian  philosopher,”  and  misty  allusions  to  a  certain  Athenian  of  Antonine’s 
reign  whom  it  is  attempted  to  identify  with  the  apologist.  Hilgenfeld,  Z.W.T.,  I 
(1893),  539,  n.  2,  has  accused  J.  Rendel  Harris  {Apol.  Aristides ,  1891)  and  Ed.  Hen- 
necke  (Zahn,  For.  G.N.T.K.,  I,  41-126)  of  inserting  the  name  “Titus,  ”  for  which  there 
is  no  manuscript  authority.  Egli  (Z.T.W.  36,  I  [1893],  100)  calls  attention  to  the 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  FRAGMENTS 


79 


140,  is  a  matter  of  only  relative  importance,  for  it  seems  quite  as  probable 
that  the  Shepherd  of  Her  mas,  a  contemporary  of  Aristides,  or  even  of 
earlier  date,  quoted  the  K.P.* 1  There  is  much  evidence  that  the  K.P. 
was  used  by  the  epistle  of  Barnabas.2  While  the  date  of  this  epistle 
is  disputed,  there  is  much  in  favor  of  placing  it  in  the  reign  of  Nerva, 
which  would  throw  the  composition  of  K.P.  in  the  first  century. 

interesting  similarity  of  names  and  events  in  Asia  Minor  during  the  reign  of  Antonine 
with  those  mentioned  by  Eusebius  under  Hadrian  ( H.E .  4.  3b).  During  the  pro¬ 
consulate  of  “Statius  Quadratus”  in  Asia  Minor,  an  “Autokrator”  was  in  Syria 
and  the  orator  “Aelius  Aristides,”  called  the  “Presbyter.”  Statius  Quadratus  was 
proconsul  of  Asia  Minor,  154-55.  Antoninus  Pius  was  in  Syria  during  that  time. 
Marcianus  is  mentioned  in  the  Martyrdom  of  Poly  carp,  which  Egli  dates  February  23, 
155  ( Z.W.T .  [1882],  pp.  227  f.).  Hence  there  is  reason  to  suspect  that  Eusebius 
confused  Antonine  with  Hadrian,  and  brought  Aristides  too  near  to  Quadratus;  unless, 
indeed,  Quadratus  the  apologist  be  the  same  as  Quadratus,  bishop  of  Athens  after  the 
martyr  Publius,  about  140  a.d.  (Euseb.  H.E.  4.  23.  3),  whom  Jerome  ( De  vir.  iii.  c.  19, 
4  Ep.  70,  Magn.  c.  4)  identifies  with  the  apologist.  In  this  case  the  apologies  of  both 
Quadratus  and  Aristides  would  fall  in  the  reign  of  Antonine.  This  depends,  however, 
on  a  confusion,  and  if  there  is  confusion  anywhere  it  is  quite  reasonable  to  suspect  that 
the  long  title  of  the  Syriac  manuscript  of  Aristides’  Apology  has  been  confused  with 
Justin’s.  Compare  the  two.  This  is  all  the  more  probable  inasmuch  as  it  is  contra¬ 
dicted  by  the  Greek  and  Armenian  and  even  the  first  Syriac  title. 

1  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas  was  probably  written  not  all  at  one  time,  but  is  rather 
a  collection  of  visions  and  meditations  for  some  time  before  150  a.d.  The  Muratorian 
Fragment  says:  “Pastorem  vero  nuperrime  temporibus  nostris  in  urbe  Roma  Hermas 
conscripsit,  sedente  (in)  cathedra  urbis  Romae  ecclesiae  Pio  episcopo  fratre  ejus.” 
Cf.  Bard.,  G.A.R.,  I,  557  ff.  For  the  text  see  F.  X.  Funk,  Die  apostolischen  Vaeter 2 
(1906),  pp.  144  ff.  Seeberg  (Zahn,  For.  G.N.T.K.,  V,  216)  and  Zahn  (G.N.T.K.,  II, 
831;  I,  920)  think  the  K.P.  was  used  by  the  author  of  the  Shepherd.  See  also 
Hilg.,  N.T.  extra  canonen  Recept.,  IV;  Dob.,  p.  67:  “mit  dem  Hirten  des  Hermas 

....  mannigfacher  Anklaenge . In  einigen  Punkten  duerfte  das  K.P.  alter 

sein  als  der  Hirt.” 

2  The  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas  is  dated  by  Harnack  130-31  a.d.  on  account 
of  chap.  16:  “The  temple  is  destroyed  by  enemies;  now  the  servants  of  the  enemy 
themselves  will  rebuild  it”;  which  he  thinks  refers  to  the  destruction  and  rebuilding 
of  the  Jerusalem  Temple  during  the  Jewish  war  of  that  date.  Funk  understands 
the  passage  in  chap.  16  to  refer  to  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  by  Titus,  and  the 
rebuilding  to  refer  to  a  “Spiritual  temple,”  16:  10,  which  is  plain  from  the  context. 
The  entire  Epistle  is  far-fetched  allegory.  In  4:4-5,  there  is  a  mystic  interpretation 
of  Dan.  7:8,  24,  applying  the  prophecy  to  the  “eleventh  king,”  who  will  “humble 
three  at  one  time,”  whom  Hilgenfeld  and  Funk  take  to  mean  Nerva  (96-98).  Cf. 
Bard.,  G.A.K.,  I,  87  ff.,  and  literature  there  given.  Harnack,  G.A.L.,  II,  1,  140  ff; 
Funk,  Kirchengeschichte ,  Abhandlungen  und  Unter suchungen,  II,  77  ff.  The  text 
used  in  this  dissertation  is  Funk’s.  Dob.,  p.  67,  says  the  K.P.  “ist  allem  anschein 
nach  spaeter  als  der  gleichfalls  Alexandrinischen  Barnabas  Brief,  der  freilich  wohl 
in  sehr  fruehe  Zeit  (unter  Vespasian  ?)  anzusetzen  ist.” 


8o 


THE  PREACHING  OF  PETER 


The  Fragments  themselves  contain  nothing  which  would  require  a 
later  date  than  ioo  a.d.  Indeed  it  is  difficult  to  place  their  contents 
later  than  ioo  a.d.  There  is  no  mention  of  ecclesiastical  organization, 
or  developed  liturgy.  Only  “the  twelve  disciples,  chosen  apostles” 
appear.  The  “twelve  years”  of  Jewish  mission  preceding  the  gentile 
mission,  which  has  gone  “into  the  whole  world,”  indicates  a  date  when 
Christianity  had  begun  to  spread  around  the  Mediterranean,  and 
doubtless  Jerusalem  had  been  destroyed  and  the  Jewish  national  hope 
had  fallen,  and  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  despaired  of,  and  the  Christian 
stood  out  as  a  “  third  race,  ”  distinct  alike  from  Jew  and  Greek.  Baptism 
is  not  mentioned  as  an  essential  for  becoming  a  Christian,  and  there  is 
no  thought  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  from  which  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that 
neither  the  Johannine  controversy  nor  the  “Pneumatic”  movement, 
if  so  we  might  designate  that  which  is  so  prominent  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  had  yet  reached  the  regions  where  the  K.P.  was  written. 
Where  was  this  ? 

6.  Place. — There  were  in  Egypt  about  this  time  not  less  than  a 
million  Jews,  more  than  in  all  Palestine.  The  K.P.  was  written  where 
Jews  were  apparently  as  prominent  as  Greeks.  The  idolatry  it  opposes 
is  typically  Egyptian.  The  language  it  uses  was  certainly  familiar  in 
Egypt,  if  not  characteristically  Alexandrine.  The  Petrine  tradition  was 
shifting  from  Rome  to  Alexandria — or  was  the  shifting  in  the  opposite 
direction?  Were  Hebrews  and  I  Peter  written  from  Alexandria? 
It  was  there,  doubtless,  that  the  Sibyl1  sang  of  Rome  as  “Babylon.” 
It  was  at  Alexandria  that  the  K.P.  was  quoted  by  the  only  three  writers 
who  may  have  known  it  at  first  hand  or  with  certainty:  Heracleon, 
Clement,  and  Origen.  Probably,  then,  the  place  of  the  writing  of  the 
K.P.  was  Alexandria. 

CONCLUSION 

'  From  the  foregoing  study  it  seems  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the 
Preaching  of  Peter  is  not  an  anti-Jewish  polemic,  as  Garbe  thought; 
nor  a  Judaeo-Christian  Gnostic  work,  as  Mayerhoff  claimed;  nor  a 
remnant  of  The  Preaching  of  Peter  and  Paul,  if  such  a  work  ever  existed, 
as  Hilgenfeld  contended;  nor  merely  a  “ half-apologetic,  ”  as  Harnack 
and  Dobschuetz  described  it;  but  even  more  than  Geffcken  considered 
it,  a  forerunner,  as  it  were,  of  the  apologies,  though  not  directly  used  by 
them.  It  is  a  Christian  apology  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word— an 

1  Cf.  Sibyl,  V,  143,  159;  Geffcken,  Zwei  gr.  Apol.,p.  in;  Apoc.  17:5;  18:10;  Case, 
The  Revelation  of  John,  1919,  on  these  passages. 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  FRAGMENTS 


81 


apology  rather  than  a  polemic,  not  defending  Christianity  against 
hostile  adversaries,  but  calmly  reasoning  with  an  audience  which, 
though  not  yet  Christian,  was  willing  to  lend  an  unprejudiced  ear  to  what 
Christianity  had  to  say  for  itself;  an  audience  in  which  the  Jewish 
element  was  quite  as  prominent  as  the  Hellenic,  yet  not  Jewish  of  the 
Pharisaic  or  rabbinic  sort,  nor  Hellenic  so  preoccupied  with  mythology 
as  Aristides,  Justin,  Tatian,  and  Athenagoras  addressed;  but  rather  a 
Jewish-Hellenistic  audience  of  the  Alexandrine  type,  prepared  for 
something  better  than  animal  or  angel  worship,  inclined  to  believe  in 
one  God  who  created  and  governs  all  things  for  man’s  sake,  who 
forgives  sin  committed  in  ignorance  if  the  offender  prepares  his  heart 
by  repentance;  an  audience  reaching  out  after  God  and  seeking  salva¬ 
tion,  such  as  the  Preaching  promised.  Such  an  audience  there  was 
in  Egypt  in  the  first  Christian  century,  such  preaching  was  being  done 
there  by  men  like  Apollos  and  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas. 
The  name,  probably  later  attached  to  the  Preaching,  reveals  its  relation 
to  the  Petrine  literature,  that  literature  which  began  to  appear,  probably, 
in  Domitian’s  reign,  if  not  earlier;  appealing  to  the  authority  of  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles;  affixing  that  authority  to  the  Roman  church 
through  the  medium  of  Peter’s  death  and  Mark’s  work  and  presence 
there;  producing  a  Gospel  in  Mark’s  name  and  Peter’s  authority,  the 
Epistles  to  the  Hebrews,  I  Peter  (later  so-called),  and  (Clement)  I 
Corinthians;  collecting  the  stories  which  supplied  material  for  Acts, 
chapters  1-12. 

The  Apocalypse  of  Peter  was  embodied  in  this  collection  of  Petrine 
Literature,  and  II  Peter  appeared  to  claim  I  Peter,  the  Apocalypse, 
and  Preaching,  and  to  promulgate  the  Gospel  or  Acts  of  Peter. 

Thus  was  Christian  apologetic  propitiously  born  at  Alexandria, 
toward  the  end  of  the  first  century  a.d.,  of  Jewish  and  Christian  parents, 
and  was  given  the  name  of  the  chief  of  Christian  apostles.  Growing  up 
in  the  Graeco-Roman  world,  struggling  with  every  type  of  opponent, 
it  contributed  much  toward  the  evolution  of  Christian  theology,  itself 
being  the  product  of  struggle  and  the  embodiment  and  vigorous  out¬ 
growth  of  the  strongest  and  healthiest  flesh  and  blood  of  the  philosophies 
and  religions  of  generations  past. 


4 


INDEX 


Angels,  Jewish  worship  of,  25,  28 

Apologetic,  beginning  of  Christian,  47  f.; 
difference  between,  and  genetic  liter¬ 
ature,  56  f. 

Apostle,  1,  34  f. 

Aristides,  K.P.  in  Apology  of,  3,  78 

Barlaam  and  Joasaph  romance,  3,  76 
Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  79  f. 

Bousset,  W.,  on  relation  of  Jewish  and 
Christian  apologetic,  7,  77  f. 

Case,  S.  J.,  hypothesis,  69  f. 

Clement,  Alex.,  fragments  of  K.P.  apud , 
1,  2 

Clementina,  44,  71,  73 
Clementine,  homilies  and  recognitions, 
43,  72  f. 

Collomp,  on  element’s  sources,  7,  77  f. 
Corinthians,  First  Epistle  to  (of  Clement), 
63  f. 

Cyprian  (pseudo),  Be  rebapti.  fragment,  75 
Didaskalia,  75 

Dobschuetz,  E.  von,  on  K.P.,  5  £f. 
“Doctrina  Petri,”  74 
Dodwell,  on  K.P.,  4 

Faith,  26  f.,  36  f.,  42,  50  f. 

Feasts  and  fasts,  1,  28 

Friedlaender,  Moriz,  on  the  relation  of 
Jewish  and  Christian  apologetic,  48 

Geffcken,  J.,  on  the  origin  of  Christian 
apologetic,  7 

God,  “One  God,”  16,  21.  See  Trinity 
“Gods,”  idol  and  animal  worship,  21,  25 
Gregory,  Naz.,  fragments  apud ,  74 

Harnack,  A.,  on  K.P.,  5 
Hebrews,  63  f. 

Hermetic  literature,  its  influence  on 
Christian,  14  f. 

Hilgenfeld,  on  K.P.,  4 

Jewish  worship,  25  f. 

Josephus,  53  f. 


Lactantius,  fragment  apud ,  75 

Law,  in  Greek  and  Jewish  philosophy,  8; 
in  New  Testament,  10;  in  Philo,  n; 
in  Justin,  25 

Law,  Jewish,  regard  for  among  Romans, 
9  f. 

Leontius,  Hiera,  74  f. 

Logos,  in  Greek  and  Jewish  philosophy, 
8-16;  in  New  Testament,  15 

Mark,  67  f. 

New,  “third  race  of  Christians,”  2,  29  f. 
Oecomenius,  75 

Optatus,  “Epistola  Petri”  apud ,  74 
Origen,  fragments  of  K.P.  apud,  3,  74 

Pantenus,  77 
“Parousia,”  3,  38,  42 
“Person”  (Prosopon),  28 

Peter,  Acts  of,  43;  Epistles  of,  43,  64  f., 
Gospel  of,  43,  61;  Apocalypse  of,  44 

Peter,  Alex.,  74 
Petrine  literature,  42,  62  f. 

Philo,  Alex.,  “Law”  and  “Logos”  apud, 
8;  apologetic,  54  f. 

Praedicatio,  Petri,  73  f. 

Preaching.  See  Kerygma 
Prophecy,  fulfilled  in  Jesus,  39 
Prophets,  “Logos”  apud,  9 

“Repentance,”  3,  25,  29,  32  f.,  50  f. 
Robinson,  J.  A.,  on  K.P.,  5 
Roman  church,  51  f. 

“Sabbath,”  which  is  called  “First,”  29 
“Scripture,”  3,  36  f. 

Shepherd  of  Hermas,  79 
Sibyl  “Law”  apud,  10 
Sin,  forgiveness  of,  3,  25,  32  f. 

Trinity,  15,  28.  See  God 
“Twelve  years,”  stay  of  the  apostles  in 
Jerusalem,  33  f.,  69 

Wendland,  P.,  on  the  Therapeutae,  7 

Zahn,  Theodor,  on  K.P.,  5 


Kerygma,  defined,  60 
“Kerygmata,”  of  Peter,  71 


83 


DATE 

:  DUE 

£  . 

2  3 'S; 

MAR'  5'3® 

\  \v  "5  f  fr  ' 

i6 

^y  :  ^ 

( 

ffuv 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.  A. 

